From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Tue Jun 3 14:58:45 2014 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:58:45 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <2e3863160f214b8dae3a977c2a988569@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Thanks Ron and Chuck for great feedback. I agree with your comments and would like to also suggest that we add a question about how well the GNSO does at inviting and encouraging new participation and engaging new leaders in order to avoid the volunteer burn out mentioned below. Succession is a critical issue in most organizations and yet it isn?t really touched on in these questions. I think it may be helpful to ask? how does the GNSO attract and retain new talent to provide succession in leadership and volunteerism? I encourage everyone on this working party to take time in the next day or so to review the questions and provide any additional feedback on list or during the call. Our goal by this Thursday will be to finalize feedback on the language and scope of the questions so that we can then plan to convene in London to discuss outreach and the plan to test the survey before it is launched. I know everyone is very busy and appreciate your time and commitment to ensure the 360 Assessment of the GNSO is as effective as possible. Thank you! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:14 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the feedback Ron. Do you think that another question should be added regarding bandwidth? Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck. I concur with you on all that you have noted. Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know ? certainly everyone on this list ? there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ?support group?, if you will, and all of those people only have so much bandwidth. Bandwidth speaks to the issue of how many hands we have on deck as opposed to volunteer burnout, which we may be conflating to mean the same thing. A data point on this would separate those two issues and perhaps give us a better look at how the MSM really works. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying ?the governing or leadership body? or ?the GNSO/structural component? say ?applicable group?. In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something like this: ?When the questions refer to ?applicable group?, they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group.? Question 24 seems unclear to me: ?How well did the GNSO/structural component?s key products/outputs meet your expectations?? First of all, I don?t think that ?products? is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don?t produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for rewording: ?How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?? A similar change could be made in Question 25. I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: ?In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?? It may be that there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible questions in place of the current one: ?Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.) I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From svg at milathan.com Tue Jun 3 16:53:42 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 18:53:42 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <2e3863160f214b8dae3a977c2a988569@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <2e3863160f214b8dae3a977c2a988569@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Jen, I understand and appreciate where you question is coming from, but I think it has to be balanced with the need for experience. I have found that in ICANN circles, the topic of new blood, whilst politically correct, always gets counterbalanced by the desire to retain experience. I am talking here of leadership positions of course. Therefore I think any question about how to get new blood needs to be asked in the context of retaining experience or getting "old hands" to pass their experience on. In that regard, I feel that the current Council Leadership team has done very well through the training sessions it has initiated. The problem there, of course, is that it does add to the load the volunteers already bear by requiring extra days out of them. Thanks, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 3 June 2014 16:58, Jen Wolfe wrote: > Thanks Ron and Chuck for great feedback. I agree with your comments and > would like to also suggest that we add a question about how well the GNSO > does at inviting and encouraging new participation and engaging new leaders > in order to avoid the volunteer burn out mentioned below. Succession is a > critical issue in most organizations and yet it isn't really touched on in > these questions. I think it may be helpful to ask- how does the GNSO > attract and retain new talent to provide succession in leadership and > volunteerism? > > > > I encourage everyone on this working party to take time in the next day or > so to review the questions and provide any additional feedback on list or > during the call. > > > > Our goal by this Thursday will be to finalize feedback on the language and > scope of the questions so that we can then plan to convene in London to > discuss outreach and the plan to test the survey before it is launched. > > > > I know everyone is very busy and appreciate your time and commitment to > ensure the 360 Assessment of the GNSO is as effective as possible. > > > > Thank you! > > > > Jen > > > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm > > Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual > property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 > > > > *513.746.2801* > > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013* > > *Follow Me:* *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* *[image: > Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > > *Follow My Blog * > > *Domain Names Rewired > * > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:14 PM > *To:* Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > Thanks for the feedback Ron. Do you think that another question should be > added regarding bandwidth? > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com ] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck. I concur with > you on all that you have noted. Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a > question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up > multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy > recommendations in a timely manner? > > > > This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC > *capacity*. As we all know - certainly everyone on this list - there is a > relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant 'support > group', if you will, and all of those people only have so much bandwidth. > Bandwidth speaks to the issue of how many hands we have on deck as opposed > to volunteer burnout, which we may be conflating to mean the same thing. A > data point on this would separate those two issues and perhaps give us a > better look at how the MSM really works. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > *dotSport LLC* > > *www.lifedotsport.com * > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42 > *To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with > the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying "the governing or > leadership body" or "the GNSO/structural component" say "applicable > group". In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful > to say something like this: "When the questions refer to 'applicable > group', they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, > GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group." > > > > Question 24 seems unclear to me: "How well did the GNSO/structural > component's key products/outputs meet your expectations?" First of all, I > don't think that 'products' is a very good term to use because GNSO groups > don't produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using > the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think > we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for > rewording: "How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your > expectations?" A similar change could be made in Question 25. > > > > I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: > "In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a > sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?" It may be that > there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible > questions in place of the current one: "Is the applicable group able to > make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond > to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to > act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the > demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to > develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my > suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, > they would need to be presented differently.) > > > > I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. > > > > Chuck > "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of > the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain > information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and > exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as > attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of > this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message > immediately." > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Tue Jun 3 22:15:38 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 18:15:38 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <2e3863160f214b8dae3a977c2a988569@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <2e3863160f214b8dae3a977c2a988569@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <048301cf7f79$5ae57030$10b05090$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Jennifer and all, I sent the draft Survey to the BC list with a request for input again today, and then I took a longer look at the questions myself. A number of things caught my attention, as noted below: #1 notes that a link will be provided to the Charter or Bylaws ? does this mean links to all structural components and GNSO Bylaws? We will need to, or redesign this question. One BC member would like to add: ?How has internal decision making been effectively driven by the GNSO Structure Charter?? If agreed to by the WP, we will need to ask this as a separate question to ensure the two questions are not conflated into one. #1 also states: ?If no, please explain? but there is no instruction as to where a respondent would add there explanation and I didn?t see that space on the Survey form. #2 Also notes: ?please provide additional comments? but does not designate where to provide them. #3 Need to define: ?key interested parties?. Otherwise it is impossible to get consistent responses to this question to give us a true data point. #5 ?If no, provide specifics.? Where? #7 ?How effective are invitations to global community to get involved?? If we are discussing structural component outreach, we should make it clear. If we are discussing ICANN?s business outreach department (Chris Mondini), we should be clear. In the end, I am not sure what exactly is being asked with this question, so we need to tighten it up. #8 We are asking two questions here: ?? encourage participation??? and ?make it easy?? Let?s break this into two separate questions to get two clear data points, e.g. ?yes? on encouraging participation; ?no? to how easy it is/was. #10 ?Does the membership provide?? Confusing. I believe it is asking me if my membership in the BC provides the things noted, but I am not sure. We need clarify this question better to get consistent data. #12 ??coordinate with other ICANN structures?? Need to define what other ICANN structures are. We (will) define ?GNSO? and ?structural components?, so what are other ICANN structures precisely? #13 ?Does the group?? Need to define who ?the group? is. To that end, it would be very helpful if we can harmonize terms across the Survey rather than introducing new ones throughout that need definition. That may or may not be possible, but we must ? again ? ensure that we don?t get a mish mash of data because our questions were interpreted differently by different respondents. #15 ?How well aligned are organizational goals and objectives?? Define whose organizational goals and objectives. I understand that the various SO/AC/Constituencies are noted on the survey, but this could mean ?ICANN? by the way the question is phrased. #17 ?Does the GNSO/structural component provide the Community with adequate time?? I?m wondering if this question should be rephrased to: Does ICANN provide?? The issue of adequate time is not a GNSO problem, rather staff generating all manner of things that the Community needs to address and, more often than not, on very short time frames. At least that is how I see it? ;o) #21 Asks five nuanced questions (a-e). We need to break these out into 5 separate questions to get the 5 answers. #23 Finishes with the question: ?What are they?? but again does not say where to detail the responses. #25 Similar to #21 above, need to break out each individual question. #27 ?Has the GNSO/structural component measured the impact of its outcomes/work?? Suggest rephrasing to: Has the GNSO? applied any metrics to determine the impact? Small change, but it will reveal which metrics along with what has been measured. I welcome other WP member?s input/comment to my suggestions. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:59 To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks Ron and Chuck for great feedback. I agree with your comments and would like to also suggest that we add a question about how well the GNSO does at inviting and encouraging new participation and engaging new leaders in order to avoid the volunteer burn out mentioned below. Succession is a critical issue in most organizations and yet it isn?t really touched on in these questions. I think it may be helpful to ask? how does the GNSO attract and retain new talent to provide succession in leadership and volunteerism? I encourage everyone on this working party to take time in the next day or so to review the questions and provide any additional feedback on list or during the call. Our goal by this Thursday will be to finalize feedback on the language and scope of the questions so that we can then plan to convene in London to discuss outreach and the plan to test the survey before it is launched. I know everyone is very busy and appreciate your time and commitment to ensure the 360 Assessment of the GNSO is as effective as possible. Thank you! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:14 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the feedback Ron. Do you think that another question should be added regarding bandwidth? Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck. I concur with you on all that you have noted. Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know ? certainly everyone on this list ? there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ?support group?, if you will, and all of those people only have so much bandwidth. Bandwidth speaks to the issue of how many hands we have on deck as opposed to volunteer burnout, which we may be conflating to mean the same thing. A data point on this would separate those two issues and perhaps give us a better look at how the MSM really works. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying ?the governing or leadership body? or ?the GNSO/structural component? say ?applicable group?. In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something like this: ?When the questions refer to ?applicable group?, they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group.? Question 24 seems unclear to me: ?How well did the GNSO/structural component?s key products/outputs meet your expectations?? First of all, I don?t think that ?products? is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don?t produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for rewording: ?How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?? A similar change could be made in Question 25. I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: ?In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?? It may be that there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible questions in place of the current one: ?Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.) I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matt.ashtiani at icann.org Tue Jun 3 23:41:46 2014 From: matt.ashtiani at icann.org (Matt Ashtiani) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 16:41:46 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] 360 Assessment Feedback Message-ID: Dear All, Please note that the 360 Assessment that was reviewed on today?s call is available here: http://goo.gl/5664D8. Please be sure to provide feedback on the language and scope of the questions by Wednesday 4-June-2014 23:59. Copies of past calls, recordings, transcripts, and meeting notes are available on the GNSO Review 2014 Working Party Meetings Workspace. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Jun 4 00:02:42 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:02:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <048301cf7f79$5ae57030$10b05090$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <2e3863160f214b8dae3a977c2a988569@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048301cf7f79$5ae57030$10b05090$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936A161@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Ron, Regarding the added question, what is meant by the GNSO Structure Charter? I don?t know what that is. Regarding the request for clarification in several of the questions for what ?group? is referred to or what ?GNSO/structural component? refers to, my understanding from the discussion we had a couple meetings ago is that those refer to the groups in the columns to the right. I think we agreed in that meeting to make that clearer and to avoid the term ?GNSO/structural component?; one suggestion made was that we use the term ?group? but if you have a term that would make it clearer, that would be helpful. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 6:16 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear Jennifer and all, I sent the draft Survey to the BC list with a request for input again today, and then I took a longer look at the questions myself. A number of things caught my attention, as noted below: #1 notes that a link will be provided to the Charter or Bylaws ? does this mean links to all structural components and GNSO Bylaws? We will need to, or redesign this question. One BC member would like to add: ?How has internal decision making been effectively driven by the GNSO Structure Charter?? If agreed to by the WP, we will need to ask this as a separate question to ensure the two questions are not conflated into one. #1 also states: ?If no, please explain? but there is no instruction as to where a respondent would add there explanation and I didn?t see that space on the Survey form. #2 Also notes: ?please provide additional comments? but does not designate where to provide them. #3 Need to define: ?key interested parties?. Otherwise it is impossible to get consistent responses to this question to give us a true data point. #5 ?If no, provide specifics.? Where? #7 ?How effective are invitations to global community to get involved?? If we are discussing structural component outreach, we should make it clear. If we are discussing ICANN?s business outreach department (Chris Mondini), we should be clear. In the end, I am not sure what exactly is being asked with this question, so we need to tighten it up. #8 We are asking two questions here: ?? encourage participation??? and ?make it easy?? Let?s break this into two separate questions to get two clear data points, e.g. ?yes? on encouraging participation; ?no? to how easy it is/was. #10 ?Does the membership provide?? Confusing. I believe it is asking me if my membership in the BC provides the things noted, but I am not sure. We need clarify this question better to get consistent data. #12 ??coordinate with other ICANN structures?? Need to define what other ICANN structures are. We (will) define ?GNSO? and ?structural components?, so what are other ICANN structures precisely? #13 ?Does the group?? Need to define who ?the group? is. To that end, it would be very helpful if we can harmonize terms across the Survey rather than introducing new ones throughout that need definition. That may or may not be possible, but we must ? again ? ensure that we don?t get a mish mash of data because our questions were interpreted differently by different respondents. #15 ?How well aligned are organizational goals and objectives?? Define whose organizational goals and objectives. I understand that the various SO/AC/Constituencies are noted on the survey, but this could mean ?ICANN? by the way the question is phrased. #17 ?Does the GNSO/structural component provide the Community with adequate time?? I?m wondering if this question should be rephrased to: Does ICANN provide?? The issue of adequate time is not a GNSO problem, rather staff generating all manner of things that the Community needs to address and, more often than not, on very short time frames. At least that is how I see it? ;o) #21 Asks five nuanced questions (a-e). We need to break these out into 5 separate questions to get the 5 answers. #23 Finishes with the question: ?What are they?? but again does not say where to detail the responses. #25 Similar to #21 above, need to break out each individual question. #27 ?Has the GNSO/structural component measured the impact of its outcomes/work?? Suggest rephrasing to: Has the GNSO? applied any metrics to determine the impact? Small change, but it will reveal which metrics along with what has been measured. I welcome other WP member?s input/comment to my suggestions. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:59 To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks Ron and Chuck for great feedback. I agree with your comments and would like to also suggest that we add a question about how well the GNSO does at inviting and encouraging new participation and engaging new leaders in order to avoid the volunteer burn out mentioned below. Succession is a critical issue in most organizations and yet it isn?t really touched on in these questions. I think it may be helpful to ask? how does the GNSO attract and retain new talent to provide succession in leadership and volunteerism? I encourage everyone on this working party to take time in the next day or so to review the questions and provide any additional feedback on list or during the call. Our goal by this Thursday will be to finalize feedback on the language and scope of the questions so that we can then plan to convene in London to discuss outreach and the plan to test the survey before it is launched. I know everyone is very busy and appreciate your time and commitment to ensure the 360 Assessment of the GNSO is as effective as possible. Thank you! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:14 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the feedback Ron. Do you think that another question should be added regarding bandwidth? Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck. I concur with you on all that you have noted. Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know ? certainly everyone on this list ? there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ?support group?, if you will, and all of those people only have so much bandwidth. Bandwidth speaks to the issue of how many hands we have on deck as opposed to volunteer burnout, which we may be conflating to mean the same thing. A data point on this would separate those two issues and perhaps give us a better look at how the MSM really works. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying ?the governing or leadership body? or ?the GNSO/structural component? say ?applicable group?. In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something like this: ?When the questions refer to ?applicable group?, they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group.? Question 24 seems unclear to me: ?How well did the GNSO/structural component?s key products/outputs meet your expectations?? First of all, I don?t think that ?products? is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don?t produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for rewording: ?How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?? A similar change could be made in Question 25. I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: ?In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?? It may be that there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible questions in place of the current one: ?Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.) I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Wed Jun 4 00:55:02 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:55:02 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Message-ID: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> Chuck, I'll revert back to our member to get the clarification. ?I had not looked at the question until you pointed it out, assuming that we will discus these things on our call this week. As for terminology, we do need to simplify what we have, in my view. Terms used in a survey should not be difficult for a respondent to process, i.e. ?easily defined within his/her mind. While I have no proof, it seems to me that easily understood questions may yield more 'reflexive responses', which in theory may give us more honest data. ? I need to get back on my PC to read the survey through inserting 'group' to be able to comment about that. When I think of the institution of ICANN, I think of one body composed of many parts.? 'Groups' may be the simple way forward, or something with more definition such as your 'self-selected group'.... ? I look forward to discussing these things on our call. Thanks for getting me up to speed on this. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com? -------- Original message -------- From: "Gomes, Chuck" Date: 06/03/2014 20:02 (GMT-05:00) To: Ron Andruff ,'Jen Wolfe' ,gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Ron, ? Regarding the added question, what is meant by the GNSO Structure Charter?? I don?t know what that is. ? Regarding the request for clarification in several of the questions for what ?group? is referred to or what ?GNSO/structural?component? refers to, my understanding from the discussion we had a couple meetings ago is that those refer to the groups in the columns to the right.? I think we agreed in that meeting to make that clearer and to avoid the term ?GNSO/structural component?; one suggestion made was that we use the term ?group? but if you have a term that would make it clearer, that would be helpful. ? Chuck ? From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 6:16 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions ? Dear Jennifer and all, ? I sent the draft Survey to the BC list with a request for input again today, and then I took a longer look at the questions myself.? A number of things caught my attention, as noted below: ? #1 notes that a link will be provided to the Charter or Bylaws ? does this mean links to all structural components and GNSO Bylaws?? We will need to, or redesign this question.? ? One BC member would like to add: ?How has internal decision making been effectively driven by the GNSO Structure Charter??? If agreed to by the WP, we will need to ask this as a separate question to ensure the two questions are not conflated into one. ? #1 also states: ?If no, please explain? but there is no instruction as to where a respondent would add there explanation and I didn?t see that space on the Survey form. ? #2 Also notes: ?please provide additional comments? but does not designate where to provide them. ? #3 Need to define: ?key interested parties?.? Otherwise it is impossible to get consistent responses to this question to give us a true data point. ? #5 ?If no, provide specifics.? Where? ? #7 ?How effective are invitations to global community to get involved??? If we are discussing structural component outreach, we should make it clear.? If we are discussing ICANN?s business outreach department (Chris Mondini), we should be clear.? In the end, I am not sure what exactly is being asked with this question, so we need to tighten it up. ? #8 We are asking two questions here: ?? encourage participation??? and ?make it easy??? Let?s break this into two separate questions to get two clear data points, e.g. ?yes? on encouraging participation; ?no? to how easy it is/was. ? #10 ?Does the membership provide?? Confusing.? I believe it is asking me if my membership in the BC provides the things noted, but I am not sure.? We need clarify this question better to get consistent data. ? #12 ??coordinate with other ICANN structures??? Need to define what other ICANN structures are.? We (will) define ?GNSO? and ?structural components?, so what are other ICANN structures precisely? ? #13 ?Does the group??? Need to define who ?the group? is.? To that end, it would be very helpful if we can harmonize terms across the Survey rather than introducing new ones throughout that need definition.? That may or may not be possible, but we must ? again ? ensure that we don?t get a mish mash of data because our questions were interpreted differently by different respondents. ? #15 ?How well aligned are organizational goals and objectives??? Define whose organizational goals and objectives.? I understand that the various SO/AC/Constituencies are noted on the survey, but this could mean ?ICANN? by the way the question is phrased. ? #17 ?Does the?GNSO/structural?component?provide?the?Community?with?adequate?time??? I?m wondering if this question should be rephrased to: Does ICANN provide??? The issue of adequate time is not a GNSO problem, rather staff generating all manner of things that the Community needs to address and, more often than not, on very short time frames.? At least that is how I see it? ;o) ? #21 Asks five nuanced questions (a-e).? We need to break these out into 5 separate questions to get the 5 answers. ? #23 Finishes with the question: ?What are they?? but again does not say where to detail the responses. ? #25 Similar to #21 above, need to break out each individual question. ? #27 ?Has?the?GNSO/structural?component?measured?the?impact?of?its?outcomes/work??? Suggest rephrasing to: Has the GNSO? applied any metrics to determine the impact?? Small change, but it will reveal which metrics along with what has been measured. ? I welcome other WP member?s input/comment to my suggestions. ? Thank you. ? Kind regards, ? RA ? ? ? Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com ? From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:59 To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions ? Thanks Ron and Chuck for great feedback.? I agree with your comments and would like to also suggest that we add a question about how well the GNSO does at inviting and encouraging new participation and engaging new leaders in order to avoid the volunteer burn out mentioned below.? Succession is a critical issue in most organizations and yet it isn?t really touched on in these questions.? I think it may be helpful to ask? how does the GNSO attract and retain new talent to provide succession in leadership and volunteerism?? ? I encourage everyone on this working party to take time in the next day or so to review the questions and provide any additional feedback on list or during the call.? ? Our goal by this Thursday will be to finalize feedback on the language and scope of the questions so that we can then plan to convene in London to discuss outreach and the plan to test the survey before it is launched. ? I? know everyone is very busy and appreciate your time and commitment to ensure the 360 Assessment of the GNSO is as effective as possible.? ? Thank you! ? Jen? ? JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM CO-MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE SADLER BREEN MORASCH & COLBY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INTL TRADEMARK LAW FIRM OF THE YEAR 2013 ? 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me:??? Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired ? From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:14 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions ? Thanks for the feedback Ron.? Do you think that another question should be added regarding bandwidth? ? Chuck ? From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions ? Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck.? I concur with you on all that you have noted.? Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner?? ? This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know ? certainly everyone on this list ? there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ?support group?, if you will, and all of those people only -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 4 15:49:42 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:49:42 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> Message-ID: <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> Hi, While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. avri From ra at dotsportllc.com Wed Jun 4 17:03:13 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:03:13 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> Message-ID: <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> Hi Avri, Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of them? Thanks, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi, While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. avri From ra at dotsportllc.com Wed Jun 4 18:15:02 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:15:02 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936A161@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E493668E2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <004b01cf7b7f$5337e9b0$f9a7bd10$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49366A10@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <2e3863160f214b8dae3a977c2a988569@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048301cf7f79$5ae57030$10b05090$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936A161@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <004201cf8020$e9dff0b0$bd9fd210$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Chuck and all, I asked for clarification on the question, as previously noted. Here is the (revised) response: ?Has internal decision making been effectively driven by the group Charter?? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 20:03 To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Ron, Regarding the added question, what is meant by the GNSO Structure Charter? I don?t know what that is. Regarding the request for clarification in several of the questions for what ?group? is referred to or what ?GNSO/structural component? refers to, my understanding from the discussion we had a couple meetings ago is that those refer to the groups in the columns to the right. I think we agreed in that meeting to make that clearer and to avoid the term ?GNSO/structural component?; one suggestion made was that we use the term ?group? but if you have a term that would make it clearer, that would be helpful. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 6:16 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear Jennifer and all, I sent the draft Survey to the BC list with a request for input again today, and then I took a longer look at the questions myself. A number of things caught my attention, as noted below: #1 notes that a link will be provided to the Charter or Bylaws ? does this mean links to all structural components and GNSO Bylaws? We will need to, or redesign this question. One BC member would like to add: ?How has internal decision making been effectively driven by the GNSO Structure Charter?? If agreed to by the WP, we will need to ask this as a separate question to ensure the two questions are not conflated into one. #1 also states: ?If no, please explain? but there is no instruction as to where a respondent would add there explanation and I didn?t see that space on the Survey form. #2 Also notes: ?please provide additional comments? but does not designate where to provide them. #3 Need to define: ?key interested parties?. Otherwise it is impossible to get consistent responses to this question to give us a true data point. #5 ?If no, provide specifics.? Where? #7 ?How effective are invitations to global community to get involved?? If we are discussing structural component outreach, we should make it clear. If we are discussing ICANN?s business outreach department (Chris Mondini), we should be clear. In the end, I am not sure what exactly is being asked with this question, so we need to tighten it up. #8 We are asking two questions here: ?? encourage participation??? and ?make it easy?? Let?s break this into two separate questions to get two clear data points, e.g. ?yes? on encouraging participation; ?no? to how easy it is/was. #10 ?Does the membership provide?? Confusing. I believe it is asking me if my membership in the BC provides the things noted, but I am not sure. We need clarify this question better to get consistent data. #12 ??coordinate with other ICANN structures?? Need to define what other ICANN structures are. We (will) define ?GNSO? and ?structural components?, so what are other ICANN structures precisely? #13 ?Does the group?? Need to define who ?the group? is. To that end, it would be very helpful if we can harmonize terms across the Survey rather than introducing new ones throughout that need definition. That may or may not be possible, but we must ? again ? ensure that we don?t get a mish mash of data because our questions were interpreted differently by different respondents. #15 ?How well aligned are organizational goals and objectives?? Define whose organizational goals and objectives. I understand that the various SO/AC/Constituencies are noted on the survey, but this could mean ?ICANN? by the way the question is phrased. #17 ?Does the GNSO/structural component provide the Community with adequate time?? I?m wondering if this question should be rephrased to: Does ICANN provide?? The issue of adequate time is not a GNSO problem, rather staff generating all manner of things that the Community needs to address and, more often than not, on very short time frames. At least that is how I see it? ;o) #21 Asks five nuanced questions (a-e). We need to break these out into 5 separate questions to get the 5 answers. #23 Finishes with the question: ?What are they?? but again does not say where to detail the responses. #25 Similar to #21 above, need to break out each individual question. #27 ?Has the GNSO/structural component measured the impact of its outcomes/work?? Suggest rephrasing to: Has the GNSO? applied any metrics to determine the impact? Small change, but it will reveal which metrics along with what has been measured. I welcome other WP member?s input/comment to my suggestions. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:59 To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks Ron and Chuck for great feedback. I agree with your comments and would like to also suggest that we add a question about how well the GNSO does at inviting and encouraging new participation and engaging new leaders in order to avoid the volunteer burn out mentioned below. Succession is a critical issue in most organizations and yet it isn?t really touched on in these questions. I think it may be helpful to ask? how does the GNSO attract and retain new talent to provide succession in leadership and volunteerism? I encourage everyone on this working party to take time in the next day or so to review the questions and provide any additional feedback on list or during the call. Our goal by this Thursday will be to finalize feedback on the language and scope of the questions so that we can then plan to convene in London to discuss outreach and the plan to test the survey before it is launched. I know everyone is very busy and appreciate your time and commitment to ensure the 360 Assessment of the GNSO is as effective as possible. Thank you! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:14 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the feedback Ron. Do you think that another question should be added regarding bandwidth? Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck. I concur with you on all that you have noted. Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know ? certainly everyone on this list ? there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ?support group?, if you will, and all of those people only have so much bandwidth. Bandwidth speaks to the issue of how many hands we have on deck as opposed to volunteer burnout, which we may be conflating to mean the same thing. A data point on this would separate those two issues and perhaps give us a better look at how the MSM really works. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the concern that Ron expressed: instead of saying ?the governing or leadership body? or ?the GNSO/structural component? say ?applicable group?. In the introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something like this: ?When the questions refer to ?applicable group?, they are referring to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or Constituency, or GNSO Working Group.? Question 24 seems unclear to me: ?How well did the GNSO/structural component?s key products/outputs meet your expectations?? First of all, I don?t think that ?products? is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don?t produce products in the traditional sense of the term. Also, using the past tense seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for a continuum of experience. Here is a suggestion for rewording: ?How well have the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?? A similar change could be made in Question 25. I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: ?In terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient number of decisions and proposed policies?? It may be that there is more than one question being asked here. Here are some possible questions in place of the current one: ?Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely manner? Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a timely manner? Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in a timely manner? Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.) I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them. Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Jun 4 22:51:51 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 22:51:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Summary minutes and action item (360 Assessment) Message-ID: Team: First, I apologies that I am responding to this so late. And I believe there has been a very productive exchange btw. Ron & Chuck that will improve the questions. But here are a few reactions: * IN general, I found the language of the questions to be very cumbersome. Is this set of questions aimed at gathering responses from "veterans" or "newcomers"? The latter may be put off very quickly unless we can simplify the terms & asks. This will have the beneficial side effect of making the survey more readily translatable. * Some of the questions seem to overlap, if not entirely duplicate one another. Or, alternatively, the distinction between them is subtle enough that they might be more appropriately combined. * I agree with Avri that we should be looking at the sub-structures of the GNSO as well as the top level. * We should consider adding an option for "Other input and comments" for each category header. Thanks- J. From: "Larisa B. Gurnick" > Date: Friday, May 30, 2014 at 17:11 To: "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Summary minutes and action item (360 Assessment) Dear members of the GNSO Review Working Party, The summary minutes and action items from yesterday's Working Party call are now posted on the wiki. Please note the action item: The GNSO Review Working Party is to review the 360 Assessment and provide feedback on the language and scope of the questions by Wednesday 4-June-2014 23:59. Staff noted the exchange of feedback and suggestions from Ron and Chuck that took place after the meeting yesterday. Thank you for your participation and feedback. Best wishes, Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 4 23:03:01 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 01:03:01 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> Hi, Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect on NCA positions. avri On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how > they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be > voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of > them? > > Thanks, > > RA > > Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com > > -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: > Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: > Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > Hi, > > While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. > > What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses > > Also is there any way the review could take into account the > situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being > apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well > could be useful. > > avri > > > From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu Jun 5 04:26:23 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 00:26:23 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Message-ID: Avri, This makes a lot of sense to me as well. With Nom Com experience these last two years, I can attest to the vetting NCAs go through and agree that we should review why one has?a vote while another does not. That logic deserves some fresh scrutiny in my view as well. Thanks for adding it to the mix. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com? -------- Original message -------- From: Avri Doria Date: 06/04/2014 19:03 (GMT-05:00) To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi, Both.? I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken.? But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical.? We should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect on NCA positions. avri On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how > they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be > voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of > them? > > Thanks, > > RA > > Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com > > -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: > Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: > Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > Hi, > > While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. > > What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses > > Also is there any way the review could take into account the > situation with NCAs?? Do we think that they way they are being > apportioned in the best.? Perhaps a column referring to them as well > could be useful. > > avri > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Jun 5 12:53:52 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 12:53:52 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on structural issues. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi, Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect on NCA positions. avri On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how > they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be > voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of > them? > > Thanks, > > RA > > Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com > > -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: > Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: > Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > Hi, > > While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. > > What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses > > Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation > with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in > the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. > > avri > > > From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Jun 5 13:55:53 2014 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:55:53 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when answering to Q #3 Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on structural issues. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi, Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect on NCA positions. avri On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how > they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be > voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of > them? > > Thanks, > > RA > > Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com > > -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: > Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: > Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > Hi, > > While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. > > What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses > > Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation > with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in > the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. > > avri > > > From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 5 14:10:21 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:10:21 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> Message-ID: <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> Hi, I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then why bother? avri On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: > > Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following > what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. > > Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when > answering to Q #3 > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM > To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural > issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural > issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more > complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on > structural issues. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > Hi, > > Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed > to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. > > I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But > that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. > This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should > check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect > on NCA positions. > > avri > > > On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >> them? >> >> Thanks, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >> >> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >> >> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >> >> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation >> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in >> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >> >> avri >> >> >> > > From michele at blacknight.com Thu Jun 5 14:15:17 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:15:17 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] apologies Message-ID: Sorry - had to miss today's call as I got pulled into a meeting Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59? 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland? Company No.: 370845 From svg at milathan.com Thu Jun 5 17:32:49 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:32:49 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> Message-ID: To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to accomplish. My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on the changes the GNSO needs. If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from structure issues? That IS the issue! Thanks, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But > since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated > by SICs behavior yet again. > > Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the > structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then > why bother? > > avri > > > On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: > > > > Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following > > what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. > > > > Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when > > answering to Q #3 > > > > Best regards > > > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM > > To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > > > I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural > > issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural > > issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more > > complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on > > structural issues. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM > > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed > > to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. > > > > I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But > > that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. > > This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should > > check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect > > on NCA positions. > > > > avri > > > > > > On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: > >> Hi Avri, > >> > >> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how > >> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be > >> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of > >> them? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> RA > >> > >> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com > >> > >> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: > >> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: > >> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. > >> > >> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses > >> > >> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation > >> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in > >> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matt.ashtiani at icann.org Thu Jun 5 18:21:17 2014 From: matt.ashtiani at icann.org (Matt Ashtiani) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 11:21:17 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review FAQs Message-ID: Dear All, Please note that the GNSO Review Frequently Asked Questions have now been translated into all 6 UN Languages! Copies of the FAQs are available on GNSO Review 2014 Background Information Workspace and links to all of the translations are provided below. Please feel free to share these FAQs freely with your constituencies and to let us know if you have any questions. * English * Espa?ol * Fran?ais * ??????? * ???? * ??????? Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu Jun 5 19:26:17 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:26:17 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> Message-ID: <011d01cf80f4$07fd4c90$17f7e5b0$@dotsportllc.com> Dear colleagues, I find it interesting that 3 past GNSO Council Chairs and one current V Chair are all at the lead of this thread. Who would know better about the things that could work better within Council?! Clearly, the GNSO can and should be a better functioning body than it is today. I find myself coming down on the side of Avri?s and Stephane?s argument. This is indeed the 360, so why are we holding anything back from gaining better insight? To that end, if all options are on the table as suggested, why not take the temperature of the community to find out whether the bicameral structure is something that community members want to keep, modify or dispense with? Seems like an appropriate question to raise if we want to determine where we go from here. My two cents RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 13:33 To: Avri Doria Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to accomplish. My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on the changes the GNSO needs. If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from structure issues? That IS the issue! Thanks, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: Hi, I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then why bother? avri On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: > > Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following > what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. > > Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when > answering to Q #3 > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM > To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural > issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural > issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more > complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on > structural issues. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > Hi, > > Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed > to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. > > I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But > that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. > This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should > check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect > on NCA positions. > > avri > > > On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >> them? >> >> Thanks, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >> >> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >> >> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >> >> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation >> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in >> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >> >> avri >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Thu Jun 5 19:54:41 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 05:54:41 +1000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <011d01cf80f4$07fd4c90$17f7e5b0$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <011d01cf80f4$07fd4c90$17f7e5b0$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: I very much agree with this. If we are not considering issues like the house structure, I am bemused as to why we would limit the review in such a way. David On 6 Jun 2014, at 5:26 am, Ron Andruff wrote: Dear colleagues, I find it interesting that 3 past GNSO Council Chairs and one current V Chair are all at the lead of this thread. Who would know better about the things that could work better within Council?! Clearly, the GNSO can and should be a better functioning body than it is today. I find myself coming down on the side of Avri?s and Stephane?s argument. This is indeed the 360, so why are we holding anything back from gaining better insight? To that end, if all options are on the table as suggested, why not take the temperature of the community to find out whether the bicameral structure is something that community members want to keep, modify or dispense with? Seems like an appropriate question to raise if we want to determine where we go from here. My two cents? RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 13:33 To: Avri Doria Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to accomplish. My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on the changes the GNSO needs. If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from structure issues? That IS the issue! Thanks, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then why bother? avri On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: > > Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following > what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. > > Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when > answering to Q #3 > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM > To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural > issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural > issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more > complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on > structural issues. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > Hi, > > Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed > to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. > > I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But > that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. > This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should > check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect > on NCA positions. > > avri > > > On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >> them? >> >> Thanks, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >> >> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >> >> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >> >> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation >> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in >> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >> >> avri >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Thu Jun 5 20:53:22 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:53:22 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 05 June 2014 1400 UTC Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on Tuesday 05 June 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140605-en.mp3 The next meeting will be held face to face in London. On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#june The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jennifer Wolfe Avri Doria David Maher Wolf Knoben Ullrich Ron Andruff Klaus Stoll Osvaldo Novoa Rafik Dammak Apologies: Chuck Gomes Stephane Van Gelder Michele Neylon ICANN Staff: Larisa Gurnick Marika Konings Matt Ashtiani Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat transcript: Matt Ashtiani:Welcome all to the GNSO Review Working Party Meeting - 5 June 2014! Ron A:Thanks for that clarification Jennifer. Matt Ashtiani 2:Hi All, the questions can be downloaded from here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48337497/360%20Introduction .pdf?version=1 &modificationDate=1400714058000&api=v2 Klaus Stoll:I think we should discuss the outreach before things are put into place and are published for discussion. Maybe we should have one session on outreach soonest, before announcements are made Terri Agnew:Michele Neylon sends his apologies Ron A:I like that direction, Jen. Ron A:Apologies for missing the London meeting due to Nom Com commitments. rafik:@Ron you like nomcom stuff ;) Ron A:Term limited this year my friend! ;o) Wolf Knoben:Thanks and bye Ron A:Thanks Jennifer and all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Jun 5 21:10:55 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:10:55 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 05 June 2014 1400 UTC Message-ID: Team: Apologies for missing the call today. I am traveling and did not see enter this event on my calendar. User error. Thanks- J. From: Terri Agnew > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 13:53 To: "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 05 June 2014 1400 UTC Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on Tuesday 05 June 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140605-en.mp3 The next meeting will be held face to face in London. On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#june The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jennifer Wolfe Avri Doria David Maher Wolf Knoben Ullrich Ron Andruff Klaus Stoll Osvaldo Novoa Rafik Dammak Apologies: Chuck Gomes Stephane Van Gelder Michele Neylon ICANN Staff: Larisa Gurnick Marika Konings Matt Ashtiani Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat transcript: Matt Ashtiani:Welcome all to the GNSO Review Working Party Meeting - 5 June 2014! Ron A:Thanks for that clarification Jennifer. Matt Ashtiani 2:Hi All, the questions can be downloaded from here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48337497/360%20Introduction.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1400714058000&api=v2 Klaus Stoll:I think we should discuss the outreach before things are put into place and are published for discussion. Maybe we should have one session on outreach soonest, before announcements are made Terri Agnew:Michele Neylon sends his apologies Ron A:I like that direction, Jen. Ron A:Apologies for missing the London meeting due to Nom Com commitments. rafik:@Ron you like nomcom stuff ;) Ron A:Term limited this year my friend! ;o) Wolf Knoben:Thanks and bye Ron A:Thanks Jennifer and all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Jun 5 22:02:46 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 22:02:46 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <011d01cf80f4$07fd4c90$17f7e5b0$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B7E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I am also supportive of getting feedback on things like the role of NCAs. There are two reasons why I suggested a delay in doing that: 1) We agreed a couple of meetings ago that we would get better responsiveness if we kept the 360 as simple as possible, including not making it too long; 2) the intent of this review was to deal with non-structural issues. We will need to eventually do a review on structure and it would fit nicely there. Also, how many people really understand the role of NCAs except those of us who have been directly involved; I think it will require some education if we want to get much feedback. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 3:55 PM To: Ron Andruff Cc: Stephane Van Gelder; Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I very much agree with this. If we are not considering issues like the house structure, I am bemused as to why we would limit the review in such a way. David On 6 Jun 2014, at 5:26 am, Ron Andruff > wrote: Dear colleagues, I find it interesting that 3 past GNSO Council Chairs and one current V Chair are all at the lead of this thread. Who would know better about the things that could work better within Council?! Clearly, the GNSO can and should be a better functioning body than it is today. I find myself coming down on the side of Avri's and Stephane's argument. This is indeed the 360, so why are we holding anything back from gaining better insight? To that end, if all options are on the table as suggested, why not take the temperature of the community to find out whether the bicameral structure is something that community members want to keep, modify or dispense with? Seems like an appropriate question to raise if we want to determine where we go from here. My two cents... RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 13:33 To: Avri Doria Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to accomplish. My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on the changes the GNSO needs. If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from structure issues? That IS the issue! Thanks, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: Hi, I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then why bother? avri On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: > > Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following > what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. > > Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when > answering to Q #3 > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM > To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural > issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural > issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more > complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on > structural issues. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > Hi, > > Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed > to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. > > I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But > that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. > This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should > check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect > on NCA positions. > > avri > > > On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >> them? >> >> Thanks, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >> >> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >> >> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >> >> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation >> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in >> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >> >> avri >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Jun 6 00:19:43 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 00:19:43 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one has convinced me of that yet. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to accomplish. My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on the changes the GNSO needs. If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from structure issues? That IS the issue! Thanks, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: Hi, I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then why bother? avri On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: > > Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following > what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. > > Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when > answering to Q #3 > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM > To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural > issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural > issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more > complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on > structural issues. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > Hi, > > Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed > to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. > > I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But > that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. > This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should > check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect > on NCA positions. > > avri > > > On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >> them? >> >> Thanks, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >> >> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >> >> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >> >> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation >> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in >> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >> >> avri >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dmaher at pir.org Fri Jun 6 15:54:20 2014 From: dmaher at pir.org (David W. Maher) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:54:20 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. David David W. Maher Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849 From: , CHUCK GOMES > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM To: Stephane Van Gelder >, Avri Doria > Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one has convinced me of that yet. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to accomplish. My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on the changes the GNSO needs. If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from structure issues? That IS the issue! Thanks, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: Hi, I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then why bother? avri On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: > > Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following > what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. > > Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when > answering to Q #3 > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM > To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural > issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural > issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more > complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on > structural issues. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > Hi, > > Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed > to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. > > I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But > that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. > This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should > check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect > on NCA positions. > > avri > > > On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >> them? >> >> Thanks, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >> >> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >> >> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >> >> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation >> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in >> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >> >> avri >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 6 16:10:11 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:10:11 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> Hi, I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be discussed. The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for openness and transparency. Also, but asking all these questions about the function and suitability of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at least we are talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of Houses, with its implications including those on NCAs we are neglecting one of tthe most important issues. avri On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: > I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. > David > David W. Maher > Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy > Public Interest Registry > 312 375 4849 > > From: , CHUCK GOMES > > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM > To: Stephane Van Gelder >, > Avri Doria > > Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > " > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one has > convinced me of that yet. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van Gelder > *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM > *To:* Avri Doria > *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to > accomplish. > > > > My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on > the changes the GNSO needs. > > > > If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and > the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points > related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. > > > > After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I > have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". > > > > That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from > structure issues? That IS the issue! > > > > Thanks, > > > St?phane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur > Milathan LTD > > "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.Milathan.com > > ---------------- > Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > > > > On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > Hi, > > I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But > since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated > by SICs behavior yet again. > > Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the > structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then > why bother? > > avri > > > > On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >> >> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following >> what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. >> >> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when >> answering to Q #3 >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural >> issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural >> issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more >> complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on >> structural issues. >> >> Chuck >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed >> to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. >> >> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But >> that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. >> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should >> check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect >> on NCA positions. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >>> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>> them? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>> >>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>> >>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation >>> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in >>> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From vgreimann at key-Systems.net Fri Jun 6 16:30:59 2014 From: vgreimann at key-Systems.net (VOLKER GREIMANN) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 18:30:59 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> Message-ID: <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house ?borders? and the houses are also not monolithic in their decision making. While there is some degree of adversariality from time to time, this is more due to differences in position than due to the house structure. So, like others, I would need to be convinced that the house structure actually forms a problem. Best, Volker On 06 Jun 2014, at 18:10, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more > adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be discussed. > The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that > the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for > openness and transparency. > > Also, but asking all these questions about the function and suitability > of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at least we are > talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of Houses, with its > implications including those on NCAs we are neglecting one of tthe most > important issues. > > avri > > > On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: >> I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. >> David >> David W. Maher >> Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy >> Public Interest Registry >> 312 375 4849 >> >> From: , CHUCK GOMES > > >> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM >> To: Stephane Van Gelder >, >> Avri Doria > >> Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> " > > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one has >> convinced me of that yet. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van Gelder >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM >> *To:* Avri Doria >> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> >> To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to >> accomplish. >> >> >> >> My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on >> the changes the GNSO needs. >> >> >> >> If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and >> the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points >> related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. >> >> >> >> After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I >> have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". >> >> >> >> That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from >> structure issues? That IS the issue! >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> St?phane Van Gelder >> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur >> Milathan LTD >> >> "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" >> >> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 >> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 >> Skype: SVANGELDER >> www.Milathan.com >> >> ---------------- >> Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com >> >> >> >> On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But >> since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated >> by SICs behavior yet again. >> >> Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the >> structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then >> why bother? >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >>> >>> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following >>> what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. >>> >>> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when >>> answering to Q #3 >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >>> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>> >>> >>> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural >>> issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural >>> issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more >>> complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on >>> structural issues. >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >>> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed >>> to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. >>> >>> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But >>> that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. >>> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should >>> check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect >>> on NCA positions. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>> Hi Avri, >>>> >>>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >>>> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>>> them? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >>>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>>> >>>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>>> >>>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation >>>> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in >>>> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Jun 6 16:42:09 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:42:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Avri, Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's primary role? Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. In my limited view, there have always been disagreements between different groups in the GNSO and probably always will be and I don't see it being any worse under the House model nor do I think it would change much under a different model. Disagreements are healthy as long as we explain our differences and collaborate to find compromises that most can accept. The challenge is to learn to work together in spite of our differences. If we can come up with a structure that would do that, that would be great but I am not convinced it's a structural problem but a behavioral problem. If we change structure and don't change behavior, we will likely not have made any meaningful change. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 12:10 PM To: Maher, David; Gomes, Chuck; Stephane Van Gelder Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi, I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be discussed. The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for openness and transparency. Also, but asking all these questions about the function and suitability of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at least we are talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of Houses, with its implications including those on NCAs we are neglecting one of tthe most important issues. avri On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: > I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. > David > David W. Maher > Senior Vice President - Law & Policy > Public Interest Registry > 312 375 4849 > > From: , CHUCK GOMES > > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM > To: Stephane Van Gelder >, > Avri Doria > > Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > " > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one > has convinced me of that yet. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van > Gelder > *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM > *To:* Avri Doria > *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 > to accomplish. > > > > My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on > the changes the GNSO needs. > > > > If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table > and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points > related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. > > > > After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I > have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". > > > > That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from > structure issues? That IS the issue! > > > > Thanks, > > > St?phane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD > > "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.Milathan.com > > ---------------- > Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > > > > On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > Hi, > > I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But > since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be > frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. > > Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the > structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then > why bother? > > avri > > > > On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >> >> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following >> what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. >> >> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when >> answering to Q #3 >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> Questions >> >> >> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO >> structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include >> structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make >> it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to >> do a 360 on structural issues. >> >> Chuck >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> ] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> Questions >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being >> allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. >> >> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. >> But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. >> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We >> should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes >> its effect on NCA positions. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >>> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>> them? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> ] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>> >>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>> >>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the >>> situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being >>> apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 6 16:46:45 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:46:45 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> Message-ID: <5391F075.1020305@acm.org> Hi, Try living on the NCPH side - there is almost nothing we can agree on. But beyond that, the houses were supposed to be just counting fantasies, without function. Yet we have been giving them function without giving them any defined structure. That is a recipe for failure - where you have functions going to a completely undefined structure. In any case, it does not matter much what we all say. The SIC will decide, this is a top down review. Though I will continue to argue my case that this is an unworkable situation. BTW, I can see the advantage of coming from the house that can work out its differences when it is the other house that can't. cheers, avri On 06-Jun-14 18:30, VOLKER GREIMANN wrote: > Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house ?borders? and the houses are also not monolithic in their decision making. While there is some degree of adversariality from time to time, this is more due to differences in position than due to the house structure. > > So, like others, I would need to be convinced that the house structure actually forms a problem. > > Best, > > Volker > > > > On 06 Jun 2014, at 18:10, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more >> adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be discussed. >> The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that >> the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for >> openness and transparency. >> >> Also, but asking all these questions about the function and suitability >> of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at least we are >> talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of Houses, with its >> implications including those on NCAs we are neglecting one of tthe most >> important issues. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: >>> I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. >>> David >>> David W. Maher >>> Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy >>> Public Interest Registry >>> 312 375 4849 >>> >>> From: , CHUCK GOMES >> > >>> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM >>> To: Stephane Van Gelder >, >>> Avri Doria > >>> Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> " >> > >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>> >>> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one has >>> convinced me of that yet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van Gelder >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM >>> *To:* Avri Doria >>> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to >>> accomplish. >>> >>> >>> >>> My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on >>> the changes the GNSO needs. >>> >>> >>> >>> If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and >>> the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points >>> related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. >>> >>> >>> >>> After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I >>> have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". >>> >>> >>> >>> That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from >>> structure issues? That IS the issue! >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> St?phane Van Gelder >>> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur >>> Milathan LTD >>> >>> "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" >>> >>> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 >>> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 >>> Skype: SVANGELDER >>> www.Milathan.com >>> >>> ---------------- >>> Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But >>> since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated >>> by SICs behavior yet again. >>> >>> Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the >>> structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then >>> why bother? >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following >>>> what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. >>>> >>>> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when >>>> answering to Q #3 >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >>>> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO structural >>>> issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural >>>> issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more >>>> complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on >>>> structural issues. >>>> >>>> Chuck >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >>>> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed >>>> to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. >>>> >>>> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. But >>>> that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. >>>> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should >>>> check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its effect >>>> on NCA positions. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>> >>>>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >>>>> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>>>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>>>> them? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> RA >>>>> >>>>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>>>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >>>>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>>>> >>>>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>>>> >>>>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation >>>>> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in >>>>> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > > From ra at dotsportllc.com Fri Jun 6 16:50:04 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:50:04 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> Message-ID: <002001cf81a7$5e4fe6d0$1aefb470$@dotsportllc.com> Dear all, I am struggling to understand why we would not do a full review using 1 survey? It would be helpful to know the point of doing 2 or 3 reviews - recognizing that we will absolutely not get people to fill in 2-3 surveys? So I am looking to those in favor of the latter to help those like me to understand. Better, in my view, to challenge every element of our current GNSO structure to establish a foundation upon which we can build a better ICANN. To be clear, what we are working with now (bicameral house structure) was an 11th hour compromise and many in the NCPH, myself included, feel strongly that this old compromise needs a good long look to elicit improvements that encourage and enhance a more collegial working environment on both the Council and between the constituencies. And lest we forget, we have new constituencies such as the NPOC as well as those bodies such as Geo and Brand gTLDs that have arisen since the bicameral house structure who may like to be on equal footing with the incumbent bodies... ICANN is not the Board or the staff, it is the community. If ICANN is to take on IANA stewardship and lead the way on Internet governance, as is being discussed, the community needs a strong and dynamic structure to support the institution in doing so. At this point, it is difficult to find anyone within the ICANN community (who has been around since the last GNSO review/improvements) that can point to examples that demonstrate our current model works. Sad, but true; it doesn't. So we need to roll up our sleeves and do the heavy lifting that needs doing, rather than punting the critical issues down the road. For me, that idea is a non-starter. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:10 To: David W. Maher; Gomes, Chuck; Stephane Van Gelder Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi, I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be discussed. The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for openness and transparency. Also, but asking all these questions about the function and suitability of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at least we are talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of Houses, with its implications including those on NCAs we are neglecting one of tthe most important issues. avri On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: > I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. > David > David W. Maher > Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy > Public Interest Registry > 312 375 4849 > > From: , CHUCK GOMES > > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM > To: Stephane Van Gelder >, > Avri Doria > > Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > " > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one > has convinced me of that yet. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van > Gelder > *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM > *To:* Avri Doria > *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 > to accomplish. > > > > My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on > the changes the GNSO needs. > > > > If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table > and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points > related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. > > > > After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I > have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". > > > > That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from > structure issues? That IS the issue! > > > > Thanks, > > > St?phane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD > > "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.Milathan.com > > ---------------- > Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > > > > On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > Hi, > > I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But > since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be > frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. > > Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the > structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then > why bother? > > avri > > > > On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >> >> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following >> what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. >> >> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when >> answering to Q #3 >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> Questions >> >> >> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO >> structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include >> structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make >> it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to >> do a 360 on structural issues. >> >> Chuck >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> ] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> Questions >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being >> allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. >> >> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. >> But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. >> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We >> should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes >> its effect on NCA positions. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >>> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>> them? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> ] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>> >>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>> >>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the >>> situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being >>> apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From ra at dotsportllc.com Fri Jun 6 16:59:27 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:59:27 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <5391F075.1020305@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> <5391F075.1020305@acm.org> Message-ID: <003b01cf81a8$aee0f160$0ca2d420$@dotsportllc.com> Dear all, Avri has it right regarding the NCPH. Sorry to be posting so regularly, but it is important for members of the CPH to understand that the NPCH (ISP, BC, IPC on one side; NCUC and NSCG on the other) have little in common by nature. Yet, we are forced to work together in an impossible environment. Thus, even selecting a Board representative that both sides of the House can agree upon is extremely difficult and, sadly, comes down to not who is absolutely most qualified, but rather whether an individual can pull two votes from the other side of the House to win the election... This is indefensible any way you cut it! And for this reason needs to be reviewed. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:47 To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi, Try living on the NCPH side - there is almost nothing we can agree on. But beyond that, the houses were supposed to be just counting fantasies, without function. Yet we have been giving them function without giving them any defined structure. That is a recipe for failure - where you have functions going to a completely undefined structure. In any case, it does not matter much what we all say. The SIC will decide, this is a top down review. Though I will continue to argue my case that this is an unworkable situation. BTW, I can see the advantage of coming from the house that can work out its differences when it is the other house that can't. cheers, avri On 06-Jun-14 18:30, VOLKER GREIMANN wrote: > Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house ?borders? and the houses are also not monolithic in their decision making. While there is some degree of adversariality from time to time, this is more due to differences in position than due to the house structure. > > So, like others, I would need to be convinced that the house structure actually forms a problem. > > Best, > > Volker > > > > On 06 Jun 2014, at 18:10, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more >> adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be discussed. >> The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that >> the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for >> openness and transparency. >> >> Also, but asking all these questions about the function and >> suitability of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at >> least we are talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of >> Houses, with its implications including those on NCAs we are >> neglecting one of tthe most important issues. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: >>> I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. >>> David >>> David W. Maher >>> Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy Public Interest Registry >>> 312 375 4849 >>> >>> From: , CHUCK GOMES >> > >>> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM >>> To: Stephane Van Gelder >> >, Avri Doria >> > >>> Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> " >> > >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>> Questions >>> >>> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one >>> has convinced me of that yet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van >>> Gelder >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM >>> *To:* Avri Doria >>> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>> Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the >>> 360 to accomplish. >>> >>> >>> >>> My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report >>> on the changes the GNSO needs. >>> >>> >>> >>> If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table >>> and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow >>> points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. >>> >>> >>> >>> After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I >>> have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". >>> >>> >>> >>> That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from >>> structure issues? That IS the issue! >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> St?phane Van Gelder >>> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD >>> >>> "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" >>> >>> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 >>> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 >>> Skype: SVANGELDER >>> www.Milathan.com >>> >>> ---------------- >>> Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. >>> But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be >>> frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. >>> >>> Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the >>> structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, >>> then why bother? >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues >>>> following what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. >>>> >>>> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least >>>> when answering to Q #3 >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >>>> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>> Questions >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO >>>> structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include >>>> structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will >>>> make it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later >>>> date to do a 360 on structural issues. >>>> >>>> Chuck >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> ] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >>>> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>> Questions >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being >>>> allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. >>>> >>>> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. >>>> But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. >>>> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We >>>> should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which >>>> includes its effect on NCA positions. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>> >>>>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about >>>>> how they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>>>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>>>> them? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> RA >>>>> >>>>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> ] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>>>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >>>>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>>>> >>>>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>>>> >>>>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the >>>>> situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being >>>>> apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > > From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 6 17:05:16 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> On 06-Jun-14 18:42, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Avri, > > Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a > problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's > primary role? > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in electing a Board member this time. Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. > Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in > general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that > directly. The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both on the NCPH side. Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks like a possible limitation. But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and I am wrong. As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the NCPH it would remove a limitation. As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by 5 people. Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on the community's influence on the GNSO. But I may be wrong. Only collecting data will tell. avri From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Jun 6 17:09:26 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 17:09:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <003b01cf81a8$aee0f160$0ca2d420$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> <5391F075.1020305@acm.org> <003b01cf81a8$aee0f160$0ca2d420$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: So, if I am understanding Avri & Ron correctly, you want to expand the review to include the structures of only the NCPH? I could see some value in that, especially given that some defined groups should be updated (e.g. ISPC vs. the absent Webhosting/Web Development interests), or are often duplicative (BC & IPC). J. On 6/6/14, 9:59 , "Ron Andruff" wrote: > >Dear all, > >Avri has it right regarding the NCPH. > >Sorry to be posting so regularly, but it is important for members of the >CPH >to understand that the NPCH (ISP, BC, IPC on one side; NCUC and NSCG on >the >other) have little in common by nature. Yet, we are forced to work >together >in an impossible environment. Thus, even selecting a Board representative >that both sides of the House can agree upon is extremely difficult and, >sadly, comes down to not who is absolutely most qualified, but rather >whether an individual can pull two votes from the other side of the House >to >win the election... This is indefensible any way you cut it! And for >this >reason needs to be reviewed. > >Kind regards, > >RA > >Ron Andruff >dotSport LLC >www.lifedotsport.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:47 >To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > >Hi, > >Try living on the NCPH side - there is almost nothing we can agree on. > >But beyond that, the houses were supposed to be just counting fantasies, >without function. Yet we have been giving them function without giving >them >any defined structure. That is a recipe for failure - where you have >functions going to a completely undefined structure. > >In any case, it does not matter much what we all say. The SIC will decide, >this is a top down review. Though I will continue to argue my case that >this >is an unworkable situation. > >BTW, I can see the advantage of coming from the house that can work out >its >differences when it is the other house that can't. > >cheers, >avri > > >On 06-Jun-14 18:30, VOLKER GREIMANN wrote: >> Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house ?borders? >and the houses are also not monolithic in their decision making. While >there >is some degree of adversariality from time to time, this is more due to >differences in position than due to the house structure. >> >> So, like others, I would need to be convinced that the house structure >actually forms a problem. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> On 06 Jun 2014, at 18:10, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more >>> adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be >>>discussed. >>> The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that >>> the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for >>> openness and transparency. >>> >>> Also, but asking all these questions about the function and >>> suitability of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at >>> least we are talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of >>> Houses, with its implications including those on NCAs we are >>> neglecting one of tthe most important issues. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: >>>> I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. >>>> David >>>> David W. Maher >>>> Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy Public Interest Registry >>>> 312 375 4849 >>>> >>>> From: , CHUCK GOMES >>> > >>>> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM >>>> To: Stephane Van Gelder >>> >, Avri Doria >>> > >>>> Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> " >>> > >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>> Questions >>>> >>>> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one >>>> has convinced me of that yet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chuck >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van >>>> Gelder >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM >>>> *To:* Avri Doria >>>> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>> Questions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the >>>> 360 to accomplish. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report >>>> on the changes the GNSO needs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table >>>> and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow >>>> points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I >>>> have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from >>>> structure issues? That IS the issue! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> St?phane Van Gelder >>>> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD >>>> >>>> "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" >>>> >>>> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 >>>> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 >>>> Skype: SVANGELDER >>>> www.Milathan.com >>>> >>>> ---------------- >>>> Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > >wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. >>>> But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be >>>> frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. >>>> >>>> Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the >>>> structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, >>>> then why bother? >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues >>>>> following what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the >>>>>review >this time. >>>>> >>>>> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least >>>>> when answering to Q #3 >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >>>>> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>> Questions >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO >>>>> structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include >>>>> structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will >>>>> make it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later >>>>> date to do a 360 on structural issues. >>>>> >>>>> Chuck >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >>>>> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>> Questions >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being >>>>> allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are >apportioned. >>>>> >>>>> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. >>>>> But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the >'improvements'. >>>>> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We >>>>> should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which >>>>> includes its effect on NCA positions. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>> >>>>>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about >>>>>> how they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>>>>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>>>>> them? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> RA >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>>>>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: >>>>>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>>>>> >>>>>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the >>>>>> situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being >>>>>> apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well >could be useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 6 17:14:24 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:14:24 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> <5391F075.1020305@acm.org> <003b01cf81a8$aee0f160$0ca2d420$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <5391F6F0.1050103@acm.org> Hi, That is not at all what I am saying. Please do not put words in my mouth. avri On 06-Jun-14 19:09, James M. Bladel wrote: > So, if I am understanding Avri & Ron correctly, you want to expand the > review to include the structures of only the NCPH? > > I could see some value in that, especially given that some defined groups > should be updated (e.g. ISPC vs. the absent Webhosting/Web Development > interests), or are often duplicative (BC & IPC). > > J. > > > On 6/6/14, 9:59 , "Ron Andruff" wrote: > >> >> Dear all, >> >> Avri has it right regarding the NCPH. >> >> Sorry to be posting so regularly, but it is important for members of the >> CPH >> to understand that the NPCH (ISP, BC, IPC on one side; NCUC and NSCG on >> the >> other) have little in common by nature. Yet, we are forced to work >> together >> in an impossible environment. Thus, even selecting a Board representative >> that both sides of the House can agree upon is extremely difficult and, >> sadly, comes down to not who is absolutely most qualified, but rather >> whether an individual can pull two votes from the other side of the House >> to >> win the election... This is indefensible any way you cut it! And for >> this >> reason needs to be reviewed. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff >> dotSport LLC >> www.lifedotsport.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:47 >> To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Try living on the NCPH side - there is almost nothing we can agree on. >> >> But beyond that, the houses were supposed to be just counting fantasies, >> without function. Yet we have been giving them function without giving >> them >> any defined structure. That is a recipe for failure - where you have >> functions going to a completely undefined structure. >> >> In any case, it does not matter much what we all say. The SIC will decide, >> this is a top down review. Though I will continue to argue my case that >> this >> is an unworkable situation. >> >> BTW, I can see the advantage of coming from the house that can work out >> its >> differences when it is the other house that can't. >> >> cheers, >> avri >> >> >> On 06-Jun-14 18:30, VOLKER GREIMANN wrote: >>> Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house ?borders? >> and the houses are also not monolithic in their decision making. While >> there >> is some degree of adversariality from time to time, this is more due to >> differences in position than due to the house structure. >>> >>> So, like others, I would need to be convinced that the house structure >> actually forms a problem. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Volker >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06 Jun 2014, at 18:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more >>>> adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be >>>> discussed. >>>> The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that >>>> the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for >>>> openness and transparency. >>>> >>>> Also, but asking all these questions about the function and >>>> suitability of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at >>>> least we are talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of >>>> Houses, with its implications including those on NCAs we are >>>> neglecting one of tthe most important issues. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: >>>>> I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. >>>>> David >>>>> David W. Maher >>>>> Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy Public Interest Registry >>>>> 312 375 4849 >>>>> >>>>> From: , CHUCK GOMES >>>> > >>>>> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM >>>>> To: Stephane Van Gelder >>>> >, Avri Doria >>>> > >>>>> Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> " >>>> > >>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>> Questions >>>>> >>>>> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one >>>>> has convinced me of that yet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chuck >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van >>>>> Gelder >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM >>>>> *To:* Avri Doria >>>>> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>> Questions >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the >>>>> 360 to accomplish. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report >>>>> on the changes the GNSO needs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table >>>>> and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow >>>>> points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I >>>>> have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from >>>>> structure issues? That IS the issue! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> St?phane Van Gelder >>>>> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD >>>>> >>>>> "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" >>>>> >>>>> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 >>>>> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 >>>>> Skype: SVANGELDER >>>>> www.Milathan.com >>>>> >>>>> ---------------- >>>>> Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. >>>>> But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be >>>>> frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the >>>>> structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, >>>>> then why bother? >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues >>>>>> following what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the >>>>>> review >> this time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least >>>>>> when answering to Q #3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >>>>>> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>> Questions >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO >>>>>> structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include >>>>>> structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will >>>>>> make it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later >>>>>> date to do a 360 on structural issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> Chuck >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>> ] >>>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >>>>>> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>> Questions >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being >>>>>> allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are >> apportioned. >>>>>> >>>>>> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. >>>>>> But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the >> 'improvements'. >>>>>> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We >>>>>> should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which >>>>>> includes its effect on NCA positions. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about >>>>>>> how they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>>>>>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>>>>>> them? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> ] >>>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>>>>>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: >>>>>>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the >>>>>>> situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being >>>>>>> apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well >> could be useful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Jun 6 17:21:29 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 17:21:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <5391F6F0.1050103@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> <5391F075.1020305@acm.org> <003b01cf81a8$aee0f160$0ca2d420$@dotsportllc.com> <5391F6F0.1050103@acm.org> Message-ID: No, I?m asking a question. The issues raised by you & Ron seem to reflect a dissatisfaction with the structure of the NCPH. If the ?consumers? of the CPH are satisfied (or maybe, less dis-satisfied) with the structure of their organizations, does that mean we should focus the review on the one and not the other? J. On 6/6/14, 10:14 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > >Hi, > >That is not at all what I am saying. >Please do not put words in my mouth. > >avri > >On 06-Jun-14 19:09, James M. Bladel wrote: >> So, if I am understanding Avri & Ron correctly, you want to expand the >> review to include the structures of only the NCPH? >> >> I could see some value in that, especially given that some defined >>groups >> should be updated (e.g. ISPC vs. the absent Webhosting/Web Development >> interests), or are often duplicative (BC & IPC). >> >> J. >> >> >> On 6/6/14, 9:59 , "Ron Andruff" wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Avri has it right regarding the NCPH. >>> >>> Sorry to be posting so regularly, but it is important for members of >>>the >>> CPH >>> to understand that the NPCH (ISP, BC, IPC on one side; NCUC and NSCG on >>> the >>> other) have little in common by nature. Yet, we are forced to work >>> together >>> in an impossible environment. Thus, even selecting a Board >>>representative >>> that both sides of the House can agree upon is extremely difficult and, >>> sadly, comes down to not who is absolutely most qualified, but rather >>> whether an individual can pull two votes from the other side of the >>>House >>> to >>> win the election... This is indefensible any way you cut it! And for >>> this >>> reason needs to be reviewed. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> dotSport LLC >>> www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:47 >>> To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>Questions >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Try living on the NCPH side - there is almost nothing we can agree on. >>> >>> But beyond that, the houses were supposed to be just counting >>>fantasies, >>> without function. Yet we have been giving them function without giving >>> them >>> any defined structure. That is a recipe for failure - where you have >>> functions going to a completely undefined structure. >>> >>> In any case, it does not matter much what we all say. The SIC will >>>decide, >>> this is a top down review. Though I will continue to argue my case that >>> this >>> is an unworkable situation. >>> >>> BTW, I can see the advantage of coming from the house that can work out >>> its >>> differences when it is the other house that can't. >>> >>> cheers, >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 18:30, VOLKER GREIMANN wrote: >>>> Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house >>>>?borders? >>> and the houses are also not monolithic in their decision making. While >>> there >>> is some degree of adversariality from time to time, this is more due to >>> differences in position than due to the house structure. >>>> >>>> So, like others, I would need to be convinced that the house structure >>> actually forms a problem. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Volker >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06 Jun 2014, at 18:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more >>>>> adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be >>>>> discussed. >>>>> The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that >>>>> the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for >>>>> openness and transparency. >>>>> >>>>> Also, but asking all these questions about the function and >>>>> suitability of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at >>>>> least we are talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of >>>>> Houses, with its implications including those on NCAs we are >>>>> neglecting one of tthe most important issues. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: >>>>>> I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to >>>>>>do. >>>>>> David >>>>>> David W. Maher >>>>>> Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy Public Interest Registry >>>>>> 312 375 4849 >>>>>> >>>>>> From: , CHUCK GOMES >>>>> > >>>>>> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM >>>>>> To: Stephane Van Gelder >>>>> >, Avri Doria >>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>> " >>>>> > >>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>> Questions >>>>>> >>>>>> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one >>>>>> has convinced me of that yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chuck >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van >>>>>> Gelder >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM >>>>>> *To:* Avri Doria >>>>>> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>> Questions >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the >>>>>> 360 to accomplish. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report >>>>>> on the changes the GNSO needs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table >>>>>> and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow >>>>>> points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I >>>>>> have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from >>>>>> structure issues? That IS the issue! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> St?phane Van Gelder >>>>>> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD >>>>>> >>>>>> "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" >>>>>> >>>>>> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 >>>>>> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 >>>>>> Skype: SVANGELDER >>>>>> www.Milathan.com >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>> Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria >>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. >>>>>> But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be >>>>>> frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the >>>>>> structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, >>>>>> then why bother? >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues >>>>>>> following what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the >>>>>>> review >>> this time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least >>>>>>> when answering to Q #3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >>>>>>> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>>> Questions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO >>>>>>> structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include >>>>>>> structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will >>>>>>> make it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later >>>>>>> date to do a 360 on structural issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chuck >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> ] >>>>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >>>>>>> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>>> Questions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being >>>>>>> allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are >>> apportioned. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. >>>>>>> But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the >>> 'improvements'. >>>>>>> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We >>>>>>> should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which >>>>>>> includes its effect on NCA positions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about >>>>>>>> how they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>>>>>>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RA >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> ] >>>>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>>>>>>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: >>>>>>>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the >>>>>>>> situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being >>>>>>>> apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as >>>>>>>>well >>> could be useful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 6 17:38:14 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:38:14 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> <5391F075.1020305@acm.org> <003b01cf81a8$aee0f160$0ca2d420$@dotsportllc.com> <5391F6F0.1050103@acm.org> Message-ID: <5391FC86.3000104@acm.org> Hi, That would not make sense to me. But at this point, I would really like to collect information before the SIC decides what needs to be done. And I think part of the collection requires questions on the Houses and NCAs. I was just suggesting that the same questions be asked in regard to these structures as well as the other structures. avri On 06-Jun-14 19:21, James M. Bladel wrote: > No, I?m asking a question. The issues raised by you & Ron seem to reflect > a dissatisfaction with the structure of the NCPH. If the ?consumers? of > the CPH are satisfied (or maybe, less dis-satisfied) with the structure of > their organizations, does that mean we should focus the review on the one > and not the other? > > J. > > > > On 6/6/14, 10:14 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> That is not at all what I am saying. >> Please do not put words in my mouth. >> >> avri >> >> On 06-Jun-14 19:09, James M. Bladel wrote: >>> So, if I am understanding Avri & Ron correctly, you want to expand the >>> review to include the structures of only the NCPH? >>> >>> I could see some value in that, especially given that some defined >>> groups >>> should be updated (e.g. ISPC vs. the absent Webhosting/Web Development >>> interests), or are often duplicative (BC & IPC). >>> >>> J. >>> >>> >>> On 6/6/14, 9:59 , "Ron Andruff" wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Avri has it right regarding the NCPH. >>>> >>>> Sorry to be posting so regularly, but it is important for members of >>>> the >>>> CPH >>>> to understand that the NPCH (ISP, BC, IPC on one side; NCUC and NSCG on >>>> the >>>> other) have little in common by nature. Yet, we are forced to work >>>> together >>>> in an impossible environment. Thus, even selecting a Board >>>> representative >>>> that both sides of the House can agree upon is extremely difficult and, >>>> sadly, comes down to not who is absolutely most qualified, but rather >>>> whether an individual can pull two votes from the other side of the >>>> House >>>> to >>>> win the election... This is indefensible any way you cut it! And for >>>> this >>>> reason needs to be reviewed. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> Ron Andruff >>>> dotSport LLC >>>> www.lifedotsport.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:47 >>>> To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>> Questions >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Try living on the NCPH side - there is almost nothing we can agree on. >>>> >>>> But beyond that, the houses were supposed to be just counting >>>> fantasies, >>>> without function. Yet we have been giving them function without giving >>>> them >>>> any defined structure. That is a recipe for failure - where you have >>>> functions going to a completely undefined structure. >>>> >>>> In any case, it does not matter much what we all say. The SIC will >>>> decide, >>>> this is a top down review. Though I will continue to argue my case that >>>> this >>>> is an unworkable situation. >>>> >>>> BTW, I can see the advantage of coming from the house that can work out >>>> its >>>> differences when it is the other house that can't. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06-Jun-14 18:30, VOLKER GREIMANN wrote: >>>>> Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house >>>>> ?borders? >>>> and the houses are also not monolithic in their decision making. While >>>> there >>>> is some degree of adversariality from time to time, this is more due to >>>> differences in position than due to the house structure. >>>>> >>>>> So, like others, I would need to be convinced that the house structure >>>> actually forms a problem. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Volker >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 06 Jun 2014, at 18:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more >>>>>> adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be >>>>>> discussed. >>>>>> The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that >>>>>> the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for >>>>>> openness and transparency. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, but asking all these questions about the function and >>>>>> suitability of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at >>>>>> least we are talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of >>>>>> Houses, with its implications including those on NCAs we are >>>>>> neglecting one of tthe most important issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: >>>>>>> I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to >>>>>>> do. >>>>>>> David >>>>>>> David W. Maher >>>>>>> Senior Vice President ? Law & Policy Public Interest Registry >>>>>>> 312 375 4849 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: , CHUCK GOMES >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM >>>>>>> To: Stephane Van Gelder >>>>>> >, Avri Doria >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> " >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>>> Questions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one >>>>>>> has convinced me of that yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chuck >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van >>>>>>> Gelder >>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM >>>>>>> *To:* Avri Doria >>>>>>> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>>> Questions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the >>>>>>> 360 to accomplish. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report >>>>>>> on the changes the GNSO needs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table >>>>>>> and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow >>>>>>> points related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I >>>>>>> have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from >>>>>>> structure issues? That IS the issue! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> St?phane Van Gelder >>>>>>> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 >>>>>>> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 >>>>>>> Skype: SVANGELDER >>>>>>> www.Milathan.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>>> Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria >>>>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. >>>>>>> But since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be >>>>>>> frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the >>>>>>> structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, >>>>>>> then why bother? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues >>>>>>>> following what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the >>>>>>>> review >>>> this time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least >>>>>>>> when answering to Q #3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >>>>>>>> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>>>> Questions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO >>>>>>>> structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include >>>>>>>> structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will >>>>>>>> make it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later >>>>>>>> date to do a 360 on structural issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Chuck >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >>>>>>>> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>>>>>> Questions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being >>>>>>>> allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are >>>> apportioned. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. >>>>>>>> But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the >>>> 'improvements'. >>>>>>>> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We >>>>>>>> should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which >>>>>>>> includes its effect on NCA positions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about >>>>>>>>> how they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>>>>>>>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RA >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>>> ] >>>>>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>>>>>>>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> Subject: >>>>>>>>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the >>>>>>>>> situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being >>>>>>>>> apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as >>>>>>>>> well >>>> could be useful. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > > From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Jun 6 17:53:25 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 17:53:25 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks for the quick response Avri. Please see my responses below. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 1:05 PM Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions On 06-Jun-14 18:42, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Avri, > > Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a > problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's primary > role? > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in electing a Board member this time.[Chuck Gomes] I don't think this has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later.[Chuck Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to commit the time. > Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in > general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both on the NCPH side. Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering the information but just question whether we should do it in this exercise, i.e., the timing. If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the NCPH it would remove a limitation. As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on the community's influence on the GNSO. [Chuck Gomes] I need some help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much more valuable than any vote would be. But I may be wrong. Only collecting data will tell. avri From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Jun 6 18:18:09 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 18:18:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <002001cf81a7$5e4fe6d0$1aefb470$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <002001cf81a7$5e4fe6d0$1aefb470$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEE1@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Ron, Please see my personal responses below. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 12:50 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear all, I am struggling to understand why we would not do a full review using 1 survey? It would be helpful to know the point of doing 2 or 3 reviews - recognizing that we will absolutely not get people to fill in 2-3 surveys? [Chuck Gomes] I think that it is much more likely to get responses to several short surveys than to one long one. The P&I WG requested information from SGs and Constituencies and ACs that was very long and the response was very limited. So I am looking to those in favor of the latter to help those like me to understand. Better, in my view, to challenge every element of our current GNSO structure to establish a foundation upon which we can build a better ICANN. To be clear, what we are working with now (bicameral house structure) was an 11th hour compromise and many in the NCPH, myself included, feel strongly that this old compromise needs a good long look to elicit improvements that encourage and enhance a more collegial working environment on both the Council and between the constituencies. And lest we forget, we have new constituencies such as the NPOC as well as those bodies such as Geo and Brand gTLDs that have arisen since the bicameral house structure who may like to be on equal footing with the incumbent bodies... [Chuck Gomes] How does the bicameral structure limit collegiality? If we cannot be collegial in the bicameral model, what makes you think we could be in another model? ICANN is not the Board or the staff, it is the community. If ICANN is to take on IANA stewardship and lead the way on Internet governance, as is being discussed, the community needs a strong and dynamic structure to support the institution in doing so. At this point, it is difficult to find anyone within the ICANN community (who has been around since the last GNSO review/improvements) that can point to examples that demonstrate our current model works. Sad, but true; it doesn't. So we need to roll up our sleeves and do the heavy lifting that needs doing, rather than punting the critical issues down the road. For me, that idea is a non-starter. [Chuck Gomes] Do you think that the IGO/INGO PDP WG was a failure? Do you think that the GNSO Council's comments (i.e., Cross Community WG Draft Charter) was a failure? Do you think that the work going on with the GAC currently is a failure? I could go on and on. Has everything been a glowing success? No, but to ignore all the successes is a terrible injustice. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:10 To: David W. Maher; Gomes, Chuck; Stephane Van Gelder Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi, I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be discussed. The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for openness and transparency. Also, but asking all these questions about the function and suitability of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at least we are talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of Houses, with its implications including those on NCAs we are neglecting one of tthe most important issues. avri On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: > I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. > David > David W. Maher > Senior Vice President - Law & Policy > Public Interest Registry > 312 375 4849 > > From: , CHUCK GOMES > > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM > To: Stephane Van Gelder >, > Avri Doria > > Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > " > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one > has convinced me of that yet. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van > Gelder > *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM > *To:* Avri Doria > *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 > to accomplish. > > > > My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on > the changes the GNSO needs. > > > > If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table > and the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points > related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. > > > > After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I > have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". > > > > That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from > structure issues? That IS the issue! > > > > Thanks, > > > St?phane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD > > "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.Milathan.com > > ---------------- > Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > > > > On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > Hi, > > I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But > since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be > frsustrated by SICs behavior yet again. > > Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the > structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then > why bother? > > avri > > > > On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: >> >> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following >> what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. >> >> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when >> answering to Q #3 >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM >> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> Questions >> >> >> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO >> structural issues that will involve more complexity. If we include >> structural issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make >> it more complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to >> do a 360 on structural issues. >> >> Chuck >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> ] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM >> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> Questions >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being >> allowed to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. >> >> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. >> But that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. >> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We >> should check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes >> its effect on NCA positions. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how >>> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be >>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of >>> them? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> ] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: >>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. >>> >>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses >>> >>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the >>> situation with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being >>> apportioned in the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 6 20:10:40 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 22:10:40 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <53922040.7030701@acm.org> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> primary role? >> > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > electing a Board member this time. [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, > then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets worse all the time. And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a workable formula. Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their neighbors. And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way to live. > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. [Chuck > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > commit the time. Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. Pathetic humor, but funny. > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that >> directly. On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > on the NCPH side. > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > exercise, i.e., the timing. I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to be done. > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the > questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is > wonderful and I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say > everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am > not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem > that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation > on the community's influence on the GNSO. BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. [Chuck Gomes] I need some > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is > providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group > and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is > much more valuable than any vote would be. Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? We would be contributing just as much. avri * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness From ra at dotsportllc.com Fri Jun 6 21:44:54 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 17:44:54 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <53922040.7030701@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> Message-ID: <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Chuck, James and all, As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup... If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and actions. So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise the community. While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, absolutely... Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then what? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> primary role? >> > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > electing a Board member this time. [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets worse all the time. And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a workable formula. Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their neighbors. And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way to live. > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. [Chuck > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > commit the time. Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. Pathetic humor, but funny. > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > on the NCPH side. > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > exercise, i.e., the timing. I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to be done. > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > that is largely a factor of structure. There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > the community's influence on the GNSO. BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. [Chuck Gomes] I need some > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much > more valuable than any vote would be. Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? We would be contributing just as much. avri * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness From svg at milathan.com Sat Jun 7 08:57:43 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 10:57:43 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <06606782-8A6C-4EE2-AF9C-57D55979721A@Key-Systems.Net> Message-ID: Interesting how this whole discussion seems to have turned into a "putting the cart before the horse exercise". Chuck, Volker and others: I would argue you do not need to be convinced that structure is the problem in this group. The team's job is to determine the right questions for a review, not to pre-determine the answers. I believe that is exactly the point Ron has made in one of his responses. Structure is not a NCPH problem, it's a GNSO review question. The questionnaire should seek to ask the right questions. Let those who answer them tell you that structure is not the issue if that's what they want to tell you. But if you haven't asked them the question, you can be sure they will not respond on structure at all. Thanks (from someone who has "lived" inside both houses!). St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 6 June 2014 18:30, VOLKER GREIMANN wrote: > Actually, I disagree. I see a lot of commonality across house "borders" > and the houses are also not monolithic in their decision making. While > there is some degree of adversariality from time to time, this is more due > to differences in position than due to the house structure. > > So, like others, I would need to be convinced that the house structure > actually forms a problem. > > Best, > > Volker > > > > On 06 Jun 2014, at 18:10, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > I believe that the house structure is making the GNSO a lot more > > adversarial than it needs to be and is a critical thing to be discussed. > > The rest is largely window dressing compared to that. Well other that > > the fact that very few of the SGs and Cs live up to requirements for > > openness and transparency. > > > > Also, but asking all these questions about the function and suitability > > of all the structures, we are talking structure. Or at least we are > > talking structurally. To not deal with the issue of Houses, with its > > implications including those on NCAs we are neglecting one of tthe most > > important issues. > > > > avri > > > > > > On 06-Jun-14 17:54, David W. Maher wrote: > >> I agree with Chuck. The timing is not right; the WG has enough to do. > >> David > >> David W. Maher > >> Senior Vice President - Law & Policy > >> Public Interest Registry > >> 312 375 4849 > >> > >> From: , CHUCK GOMES >> > > >> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:19 PM > >> To: Stephane Van Gelder >, > >> Avri Doria > > >> Cc: "ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > >> " >> > > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > >> > >> I am open to being convinced that structure is the issue but no one has > >> convinced me of that yet. > >> > >> > >> > >> Chuck > >> > >> > >> > >> *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > >> > >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van > Gelder > >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:33 PM > >> *To:* Avri Doria > >> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> > >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > >> > >> > >> > >> To me this discussion raises the larger point of what we want the 360 to > >> accomplish. > >> > >> > >> > >> My answer: set the independent review up to write a concrete report on > >> the changes the GNSO needs. > >> > >> > >> > >> If others share this objective, then nothing should be off the table and > >> the questionnaire should be sufficiently detailed to allow points > >> related to the GNSO's structure to come to the surface. > >> > >> > >> > >> After all, ever since the bicameral structure was implemented, all I > >> have ever heard on the GNSO is that it has a "structure problem". > >> > >> > >> > >> That being the case, why would this group want to stay away from > >> structure issues? That IS the issue! > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> > >> St?phane Van Gelder > >> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur > >> Milathan LTD > >> > >> "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > >> > >> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > >> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > >> Skype: SVANGELDER > >> www.Milathan.com > >> > >> ---------------- > >> Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5 June 2014 16:10, Avri Doria > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I do not agree that structural elements should be off the table. But > >> since this yet another top down exercise, I guess I will be frsustrated > >> by SICs behavior yet again. > >> > >> Yes, I thought we were asking about the effectiveness of all the > >> structures. If that is not for the purpose of structural review, then > >> why bother? > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> > >> On 05-Jun-14 15:55, WUKnoben wrote: > >>> > >>> Well, I agree that we should not include structural issues following > >>> what I've understood from the SICs intentions for the review this time. > >>> > >>> Questions like this should be taken into consideration at least when > >>> answering to Q #3 > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> > >>> Wolf-Ulrich > >>> > >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:53 PM > >>> To: Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org gnso-review-dt at icann.org> > >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > >>> > >>> > >>> I think the questions on NCAs are good but I see them as GNSO > structural > >>> issues that will involve more complexity. If we include structural > >>> issues in the 360 this time around, I believe it will make it more > >>> complex. I wonder if it would be better at a later date to do a 360 on > >>> structural issues. > >>> > >>> Chuck > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> > >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>] > >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:03 PM > >>> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Both. I think we should evaluate whether the 3 NCAs are being allowed > >>> to work to their best potential by the way they are apportioned. > >>> > >>> I personally think the notion of a homeless voteless NCA is broken. > But > >>> that is just the opinion a one exNCA from before the 'improvements'. > >>> This whole house arrangement is new, and some what radical. We should > >>> check and see if the 360 thinks it is working, which includes its > effect > >>> on NCA positions. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 04-Jun-14 19:03, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> Hi Avri, > >>>> > >>>> Just for clarification, regarding the NCA and your comment about how > >>>> they are apportioned, do you mean whether they should be > >>>> voting/non-voting or do you think there should be more or less of > >>>> them? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> RA > >>>> > >>>> Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com < > http://www.lifedotsport.com> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>] > >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: > >>>> Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:50 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org gnso-review-dt at icann.org> Subject: > >>>> Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> While the questions leave me unimpressed, they are ok. > >>>> > >>>> What is missing in my opinion is a column for the GNSO Houses > >>>> > >>>> Also is there any way the review could take into account the situation > >>>> with NCAs? Do we think that they way they are being apportioned in > >>>> the best. Perhaps a column referring to them as well could be useful. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Sat Jun 7 13:36:16 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 13:36:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Ron, Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to continue this discussion. That can be done on this list or off list. I think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether structure is a problem or not. The reason I entered into the discussion is because others stated that it was a problem. Why do you consider vertical integration a failure? The fact that no consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed. It could simply mean that there was no consensus to be reached. That should not be taken as failure. We are living in a dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. In cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market forces work unless security and stability are at risk. Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included in that decision? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house was to break ties. That is a key part of the structural design we have. The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; the NCA broke the tie. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear Chuck, James and all, As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup... If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and actions. So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise the community. While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, absolutely... Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then what? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> primary role? >> > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > electing a Board member this time. [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets worse all the time. And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a workable formula. Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their neighbors. And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way to live. > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. [Chuck > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > commit the time. Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. Pathetic humor, but funny. > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > on the NCPH side. > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > exercise, i.e., the timing. I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to be done. > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > that is largely a factor of structure. There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > the community's influence on the GNSO. BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. [Chuck Gomes] I need some > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much > more valuable than any vote would be. Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? We would be contributing just as much. avri * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Sun Jun 8 15:14:29 2014 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 15:14:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Hi everyone, Thank you to Chuck and Ron for continuing the dialogue on an important topic. If I may suggest, I'd like to try to reframe this a bit in terms of the scope of our work. In reading through the email chains we seem to have jumped a bit ahead into analysis and recommendations. At this stage, it's important we try to focus our discussion on the topic of what questions are included in the survey. There will definitely be a phase to our work where we are reviewing and analyzing data and forming our own conclusions and recommendations as part of a self-review, but given the SIC's time frame, I'd like to make sure we provide the SIC and staff clear consensus on what we believe should be included in the scope of the questions and in the language of the questions. Are we recommending to the SIC that structural questions be included in the survey? Or, do you all think that is out of scope for this survey? If this is important data to gather, should we create closed ended or open ended questions addressing this issue? I appreciate your responsiveness to these issues. With kindest regards, Jen JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me:??? Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 9:36 AM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Ron, Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to continue this discussion. That can be done on this list or off list. I think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether structure is a problem or not. The reason I entered into the discussion is because others stated that it was a problem. Why do you consider vertical integration a failure? The fact that no consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed. It could simply mean that there was no consensus to be reached. That should not be taken as failure. We are living in a dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. In cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market forces work unless security and stability are at risk. Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included in that decision? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house was to break ties. That is a key part of the structural design we have. The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; the NCA broke the tie. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear Chuck, James and all, As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup... If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and actions. So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise the community. While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, absolutely... Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then what? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> primary role? >> > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > electing a Board member this time. [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets worse all the time. And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a workable formula. Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their neighbors. And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way to live. > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. [Chuck > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > commit the time. Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. Pathetic humor, but funny. > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > on the NCPH side. > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > exercise, i.e., the timing. I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to be done. > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > that is largely a factor of structure. There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > the community's influence on the GNSO. BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. [Chuck Gomes] I need some > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much > more valuable than any vote would be. Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? We would be contributing just as much. avri * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness From cgomes at Verisign.com Sun Jun 8 20:45:48 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 20:45:48 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936CD7F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Jen, I know that the SIC suggested that structural issues should not dealt with in this part of the review. I concluded from that that there would be a follow-up review in which structural issues would be a focus. My assumption was that that would happen after this review is done and that we would not wait until the next GNSO Review came around three years or so down the road. If I am incorrect on that, then I think those who want to include structural questions have a legitimate concerns. When I said that I did not think we should include structural questions in the 360 Review we are working on, I was assuming that such questions would be included when we are finished with this phase of the GNSO Review. I think it would be really helpful if you could seek clarification on this for us from the SIC. I suggest that we respond to your questions about whether we should include structural questions in the current 360 be answered after we get that clarification. In my case, the clarification will affect my view. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 11:14 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi everyone, Thank you to Chuck and Ron for continuing the dialogue on an important topic. If I may suggest, I'd like to try to reframe this a bit in terms of the scope of our work. In reading through the email chains we seem to have jumped a bit ahead into analysis and recommendations. At this stage, it's important we try to focus our discussion on the topic of what questions are included in the survey. There will definitely be a phase to our work where we are reviewing and analyzing data and forming our own conclusions and recommendations as part of a self-review, but given the SIC's time frame, I'd like to make sure we provide the SIC and staff clear consensus on what we believe should be included in the scope of the questions and in the language of the questions. Are we recommending to the SIC that structural questions be included in the survey? Or, do you all think that is out of scope for this survey? If this is important data to gather, should we create closed ended or open ended questions addressing this issue? I appreciate your responsiveness to these issues. With kindest regards, Jen JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 9:36 AM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Ron, Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to continue this discussion. That can be done on this list or off list. I think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether structure is a problem or not. The reason I entered into the discussion is because others stated that it was a problem. Why do you consider vertical integration a failure? The fact that no consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed. It could simply mean that there was no consensus to be reached. That should not be taken as failure. We are living in a dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. In cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market forces work unless security and stability are at risk. Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included in that decision? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house was to break ties. That is a key part of the structural design we have. The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; the NCA broke the tie. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear Chuck, James and all, As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup... If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and actions. So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise the community. While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, absolutely... Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then what? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> primary role? >> > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > electing a Board member this time. [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets worse all the time. And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a workable formula. Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their neighbors. And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way to live. > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. [Chuck > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > commit the time. Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. Pathetic humor, but funny. > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > on the NCPH side. > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > exercise, i.e., the timing. I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to be done. > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > that is largely a factor of structure. There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > the community's influence on the GNSO. BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. [Chuck Gomes] I need some > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much > more valuable than any vote would be. Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? We would be contributing just as much. avri * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness From ra at dotsportllc.com Mon Jun 9 16:53:47 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 12:53:47 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <01b401cf8403$6351d770$29f58650$@dotsportllc.com> Chuck, Please see my comments in red below. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 09:36 To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Ron, Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to continue this discussion. That can be done on this list or off list. I think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether structure is a problem or not. The reason I entered into the discussion is because others stated that it was a problem. RA: The list of failed WG's is a long one Chuck, as you know. We don't need a list of them to aid us in what we are trying to do here. The issue here is to include questions for respondents to help everyone understand if there is a structural problem or not. Several of us in the NCPH have indicated that we feel there is and thus would like to see structural questions asked. Why do you consider vertical integration a failure? The fact that no consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed. It could simply mean that there was no consensus to be reached. That should not be taken as failure. RA: Any WG that is removed from finishing its task by the Board of Directors is a failed WG. Consensus was not the issue. The issue was that the VI WG was not able to complete its mandate. We are living in a dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. RA: I agree with you on this. But I would add that the time may be long overdue to consider looking at Rough Consensus as a viable option to Full Consensus (the top 2 of five ICANN levels of consensus). Rough consensus provides for those who are not in consensus with the larger WG to detail their arguments to the contrary just as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices do. In cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market forces work unless security and stability are at risk. RA: Can't agree with this premise. There is a big gap between reaching consensus and letting market forces work, but few at ICANN seem to understand that. Sadly, some may feel that holding out on consensus simply advances the market forces alternative, which may be more viable to their businesses. Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included in that decision? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house was to break ties. That is a key part of the structural design we have. The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; the NCA broke the tie. RA: So it bears noting that in the case of two groups in one house the structural design hoped for, works. In the case of the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at all. We need to review this structure. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear Chuck, James and all, As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup... If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and actions. So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise the community. While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, absolutely... Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then what? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> primary role? >> > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > electing a Board member this time. [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets worse all the time. And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a workable formula. Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their neighbors. And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way to live. > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. [Chuck > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > commit the time. Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. Pathetic humor, but funny. > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > on the NCPH side. > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > exercise, i.e., the timing. I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to be done. > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > that is largely a factor of structure. There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > the community's influence on the GNSO. BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. [Chuck Gomes] I need some > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much > more valuable than any vote would be. Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? We would be contributing just as much. avri * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Mon Jun 9 16:56:19 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 12:56:19 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] SIC briefing docs Message-ID: <01b901cf8403$bffc1210$3ff43630$@dotsportllc.com> Apologies for not having read the SIC documentation, Jen. I have been relying on the calls to gather our mandate. Can you or staff send me a link to this, please? Thank you, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2014 11:14 To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi everyone, Thank you to Chuck and Ron for continuing the dialogue on an important topic. If I may suggest, I'd like to try to reframe this a bit in terms of the scope of our work. In reading through the email chains we seem to have jumped a bit ahead into analysis and recommendations. At this stage, it's important we try to focus our discussion on the topic of what questions are included in the survey. There will definitely be a phase to our work where we are reviewing and analyzing data and forming our own conclusions and recommendations as part of a self-review, but given the SIC's time frame, I'd like to make sure we provide the SIC and staff clear consensus on what we believe should be included in the scope of the questions and in the language of the questions. Are we recommending to the SIC that structural questions be included in the survey? Or, do you all think that is out of scope for this survey? If this is important data to gather, should we create closed ended or open ended questions addressing this issue? I appreciate your responsiveness to these issues. With kindest regards, Jen JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 9:36 AM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Ron, Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to continue this discussion. That can be done on this list or off list. I think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether structure is a problem or not. The reason I entered into the discussion is because others stated that it was a problem. Why do you consider vertical integration a failure? The fact that no consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed. It could simply mean that there was no consensus to be reached. That should not be taken as failure. We are living in a dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. In cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market forces work unless security and stability are at risk. Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included in that decision? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house was to break ties. That is a key part of the structural design we have. The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; the NCA broke the tie. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear Chuck, James and all, As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup... If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and actions. So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise the community. While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, absolutely... Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then what? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> primary role? >> > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > electing a Board member this time. [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets worse all the time. And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a workable formula. Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their neighbors. And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way to live. > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. [Chuck > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > commit the time. Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. Pathetic humor, but funny. > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > on the NCPH side. > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > exercise, i.e., the timing. I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to be done. > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > that is largely a factor of structure. There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > the community's influence on the GNSO. BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. [Chuck Gomes] I need some > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much > more valuable than any vote would be. Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? We would be contributing just as much. avri * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness From ra at dotsportllc.com Mon Jun 9 16:58:19 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 12:58:19 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936CD7F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936CD7F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.! vrsn.com> Message-ID: <01ba01cf8404$060cc6f0$122654d0$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Jen, Cuck and all, I agree with Chuck's request for clarification. That will hopefully clear up some of the issues in this discussion. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2014 16:46 To: Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Jen, I know that the SIC suggested that structural issues should not dealt with in this part of the review. I concluded from that that there would be a follow-up review in which structural issues would be a focus. My assumption was that that would happen after this review is done and that we would not wait until the next GNSO Review came around three years or so down the road. If I am incorrect on that, then I think those who want to include structural questions have a legitimate concerns. When I said that I did not think we should include structural questions in the 360 Review we are working on, I was assuming that such questions would be included when we are finished with this phase of the GNSO Review. I think it would be really helpful if you could seek clarification on this for us from the SIC. I suggest that we respond to your questions about whether we should include structural questions in the current 360 be answered after we get that clarification. In my case, the clarification will affect my view. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 11:14 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi everyone, Thank you to Chuck and Ron for continuing the dialogue on an important topic. If I may suggest, I'd like to try to reframe this a bit in terms of the scope of our work. In reading through the email chains we seem to have jumped a bit ahead into analysis and recommendations. At this stage, it's important we try to focus our discussion on the topic of what questions are included in the survey. There will definitely be a phase to our work where we are reviewing and analyzing data and forming our own conclusions and recommendations as part of a self-review, but given the SIC's time frame, I'd like to make sure we provide the SIC and staff clear consensus on what we believe should be included in the scope of the questions and in the language of the questions. Are we recommending to the SIC that structural questions be included in the survey? Or, do you all think that is out of scope for this survey? If this is important data to gather, should we create closed ended or open ended questions addressing this issue? I appreciate your responsiveness to these issues. With kindest regards, Jen JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 9:36 AM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Ron, Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to continue this discussion. That can be done on this list or off list. I think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether structure is a problem or not. The reason I entered into the discussion is because others stated that it was a problem. Why do you consider vertical integration a failure? The fact that no consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed. It could simply mean that there was no consensus to be reached. That should not be taken as failure. We are living in a dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. In cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market forces work unless security and stability are at risk. Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included in that decision? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house was to break ties. That is a key part of the structural design we have. The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; the NCA broke the tie. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear Chuck, James and all, As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup... If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and actions. So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise the community. While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, absolutely... Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then what? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> primary role? >> > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > electing a Board member this time. [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets worse all the time. And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a workable formula. Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their neighbors. And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way to live. > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. [Chuck > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > commit the time. Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. Pathetic humor, but funny. > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > on the NCPH side. > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > exercise, i.e., the timing. I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to be done. > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > that is largely a factor of structure. There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > the community's influence on the GNSO. BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. [Chuck Gomes] I need some > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much > more valuable than any vote would be. Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? We would be contributing just as much. avri * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon Jun 9 19:37:52 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 19:37:52 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 05 June 2014 1400 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936D978@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Please accept my apologies again for missing last week's call. I just listened to the MP3 recording. Here are some comments that I came up in listening to it with for the 360 Review. 1. I think it would be helpful if respondents were asked to provide the following prefatory information in addition to what was discussed on the call: a. Are you a member of an ICANN group? If so, please identify what group or groups: (provide a drop down box and allow for selection of more than one) b. If you are a member of an ICANN group, are you responding on behalf of that group or in your personal capacity? 2. With all due respect to Ron , my memory may be faulty but I don't think that the bicameral house structure was an "eleventh hour fifty nine minute" compromise. It was a solution that occurred after quite a bit of earlier discussion but in my opinion there was quite a bit of thought that went into it. That doesn't mean that it is perfect but I don't think it is fair to call it a last minute compromise. That said, if this group thinks we should ask a question about NCAs, I can live with that. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 4:53 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference Thursday 05 June 2014 1400 UTC Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on Tuesday 05 June 2014 at 1400 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-20140605-en.mp3 The next meeting will be held face to face in London. On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#june The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jennifer Wolfe Avri Doria David Maher Wolf Knoben Ullrich Ron Andruff Klaus Stoll Osvaldo Novoa Rafik Dammak Apologies: Chuck Gomes Stephane Van Gelder Michele Neylon ICANN Staff: Larisa Gurnick Marika Konings Matt Ashtiani Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Public archives of the mailing list can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gac-gnso-cg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat transcript: Matt Ashtiani:Welcome all to the GNSO Review Working Party Meeting - 5 June 2014! Ron A:Thanks for that clarification Jennifer. Matt Ashtiani 2:Hi All, the questions can be downloaded from here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48337497/360%20Introduction .pdf?version=1 &modificationDate=1400714058000&api=v2 Klaus Stoll:I think we should discuss the outreach before things are put into place and are published for discussion. Maybe we should have one session on outreach soonest, before announcements are made Terri Agnew:Michele Neylon sends his apologies Ron A:I like that direction, Jen. Ron A:Apologies for missing the London meeting due to Nom Com commitments. rafik:@Ron you like nomcom stuff ;) Ron A:Term limited this year my friend! ;o) Wolf Knoben:Thanks and bye Ron A:Thanks Jennifer and all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5951 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon Jun 9 19:57:07 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 19:57:07 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <01b401cf8403$6351d770$29f58650$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <01b401cf8403$6351d770$29f58650$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936D9BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Ron, Let me repeat what I have said already, if most of the people in this group wants to add questions regarding structure, I am fine with that. I have said why I opposed that but I am just one person with no more weight than anyone else. The reason I asked for a list of failures is because I am not convinced that "The list of failed WG's is a long one" unless you and I have different definitions of failure, which is possible. So it would really helped me if you tell me which ones you think were failures. I do not consider the VI WG a failure. One problem is that the Board gave an unrealistic time limit. But even if they had more time, I am not convinced that a consensus could have been reached. Also, I don't see how failed WGs would be attributable to GNSO structure, so please help me understand your thinking in that regard. I would like to think that you do not you disagree with ICANN Core Value 5? "5. Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment." I don't understand this: "In the case of the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at all. " The number of constituencies should have nothing to do with it. The current structure gives the NCSG and CSG the same number of votes, so the NCA vote would matter. For those of you who may be concerned about the back and forth between Ron & I, let me assure you that I have the utmost respect for Ron and I consider him a friend. We have worked together in the ICANN world for a long time. Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 12:54 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Chuck, Please see my comments in red below. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 09:36 To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Ron, Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to continue this discussion. That can be done on this list or off list. I think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether structure is a problem or not. The reason I entered into the discussion is because others stated that it was a problem. RA: The list of failed WG's is a long one Chuck, as you know. We don't need a list of them to aid us in what we are trying to do here. The issue here is to include questions for respondents to help everyone understand if there is a structural problem or not. Several of us in the NCPH have indicated that we feel there is and thus would like to see structural questions asked. Why do you consider vertical integration a failure? The fact that no consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed. It could simply mean that there was no consensus to be reached. That should not be taken as failure. RA: Any WG that is removed from finishing its task by the Board of Directors is a failed WG. Consensus was not the issue. The issue was that the VI WG was not able to complete its mandate. We are living in a dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. RA: I agree with you on this. But I would add that the time may be long overdue to consider looking at Rough Consensus as a viable option to Full Consensus (the top 2 of five ICANN levels of consensus). Rough consensus provides for those who are not in consensus with the larger WG to detail their arguments to the contrary just as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices do. In cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market forces work unless security and stability are at risk. RA: Can't agree with this premise. There is a big gap between reaching consensus and letting market forces work, but few at ICANN seem to understand that. Sadly, some may feel that holding out on consensus simply advances the market forces alternative, which may be more viable to their businesses... Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included in that decision? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house was to break ties. That is a key part of the structural design we have. The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; the NCA broke the tie. RA: So it bears noting that in the case of two groups in one house the structural design hoped for, works. In the case of the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at all. We need to review this structure. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Dear Chuck, James and all, As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup... If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and actions. So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise the community. While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, absolutely... Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then what? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> primary role? >> > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > electing a Board member this time. [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets worse all the time. And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never been a workable formula. Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their neighbors. And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is not way to live. > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. [Chuck > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > commit the time. Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. Pathetic humor, but funny. > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > on the NCPH side. > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > like a possible limitation. [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. [Chuck Gomes] > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > exercise, i.e., the timing. I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs to be done. > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > I am wrong. [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > that is largely a factor of structure. There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > 5 people. [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > the community's influence on the GNSO. BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. [Chuck Gomes] I need some > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much > more valuable than any vote would be. Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? We would be contributing just as much. avri * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From svg at milathan.com Mon Jun 9 21:50:15 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 23:50:15 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936D9BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <01b401cf8403$6351d770$29f58650$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936D9BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: No concerns on the back and forth between Ron and you Chuck, especially since many others such as Volker, James, Avri and myself have also weighed in ;) I do agree with you that associating WG failure with GNSO structure issues is misguided. I do not however think that's what Ron is saying, but I will not put words into his mouth and let him correct my assumption if it is false. In any case, I will repeat what I have already said: questions about structure should be included in the 360, without any expectations of what answers they might elicit. Let the review respondents say what they want to say. Our job here in this group is to make sure they have an opportunity to say what they want to say. Thanks, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 9 June 2014 21:57, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Ron, > > > > Let me repeat what I have said already, if most of the people in this > group wants to add questions regarding structure, I am fine with that. I > have said why I opposed that but I am just one person with no more weight > than anyone else. > > > > The reason I asked for a list of failures is because I am not convinced > that "The list of failed WG's is a long one" unless you and I have > different definitions of failure, which is possible. So it would really > helped me if you tell me which ones you think were failures. > > > > I do not consider the VI WG a failure. One problem is that the Board gave > an unrealistic time limit. But even if they had more time, I am not > convinced that a consensus could have been reached. > > > > Also, I don't see how failed WGs would be attributable to GNSO structure, > so please help me understand your thinking in that regard. > > > > I would like to think that you do not you disagree with ICANN Core Value > 5? "5. Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to > promote and sustain a competitive environment." > > > > I don't understand this: "In the case of the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so > that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at all. " The number of > constituencies should have nothing to do with it. The current structure > gives the NCSG and CSG the same number of votes, so the NCA vote would > matter. > > > > For those of you who may be concerned about the back and forth between Ron > & I, let me assure you that I have the utmost respect for Ron and I > consider him a friend. We have worked together in the ICANN world for a > long time. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] > *Sent:* Monday, June 09, 2014 12:54 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > Chuck, > > > > Please see my comments in red below. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 09:36 > To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > Ron, > > > > Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have > failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to > continue this discussion. That can be done on this list or off list. I > think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include > questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether > structure is a problem or not. The reason I entered into the discussion is > because others stated that it was a problem. RA: The list of failed WG's > is a long one Chuck, as you know. We don't need a list of them to aid us > in what we are trying to do here. The issue here is to include questions > for respondents to help everyone understand if there is a structural > problem or not. Several of us in the NCPH have indicated that we feel > there is and thus would like to see structural questions asked. > > > > Why do you consider vertical integration a failure? The fact that no > consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed. It could simply mean > that there was no consensus to be reached. That should not be taken as > failure. RA: Any WG that is removed from finishing its task by the Board > of Directors is a failed WG. Consensus was not the issue. The issue was > that the VI WG was not able to complete its mandate. We are living in a > dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. RA: > I agree with you on this. But I would add that the time may be long > overdue to consider looking at Rough Consensus as a viable option to Full > Consensus (the top 2 of five ICANN levels of consensus). Rough consensus > provides for those who are not in consensus with the larger WG to detail > their arguments to the contrary just as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices do. In > cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market > forces work unless security and stability are at risk. RA: Can't agree > with this premise. There is a big gap between reaching consensus and > letting market forces work, but few at ICANN seem to understand that. > Sadly, some may feel that holding out on consensus simply advances the > market forces alternative, which may be more viable to their businesses... > > > > Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included > in that decision? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house > was to break ties. That is a key part of the structural design we have. > The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; > the NCA broke the tie. RA: So it bears noting that in the case of two > groups in one house the structural design hoped for, works. In the case of > the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at > all. We need to review this structure. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM > > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > > > Dear Chuck, James and all, > > > > As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I > am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I > believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is > that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - > Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not > contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to > how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that > mashup... > > > > If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: > > the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is > commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, > as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up > the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and > actions. > > > > So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH > is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as > constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review > to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it > better serves the institution and likewise the community. > > > > While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, > the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, > big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, > e.g. > > Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even > trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for > $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought > would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an > outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know > the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of > VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as > conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens > when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. > > > > In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with > a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, > houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, > communities, brands, geos) etc. > > > > We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's > (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give > us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to > put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. > > > > A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come > up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with > the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much > vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result > of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled > at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's > get... > > Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? > > Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community > would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what > quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were > to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one > from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from > the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, > yes. > > Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, > absolutely... > > > > Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to > generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will > see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then > what? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 > > Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > > > > > > > On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > > >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a > > >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's > > >> primary role? > > >> > > > > > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > > > months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great > > > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > > > electing a Board member this time. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > > > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > > > an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > > > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > > > structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > > > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. > > > > It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and > gets worse all the time. > > > > And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the > difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the other > house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. > > In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never > been a workable formula. > > > > Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their > neighbors. > > > > And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it > gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is > not way to live. > > > > > > > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > > > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > > > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of > > > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. > > > > > > [Chuck > > > Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is > > > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If > > > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > > > rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this > > > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > > > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > > > commit the time. > > > > Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people > tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a > candidate that could win because our vote would always split. > > Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. > > Pathetic humor, but funny. > > > > > > > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in > > >> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. > > > > On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all > know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > > > > > > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both > > > on the NCPH side. > > > > > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > > > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > > > like a possible limitation. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > > > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. > > > > That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. > > Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > > > > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > > > > > What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception > > > is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > > > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes] > > > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > > > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > > > exercise, i.e., the timing. > > > > I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in > 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what > needs to be done. > > > > > > > > > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > > > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > > > I am wrong. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > > > questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything > > > is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > > > that is largely a factor of structure. > > > > There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key > component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a > critical one. > > You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put > together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with > these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the > voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more > difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this > time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > > > > > > > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > > > > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > > > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > > > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > > > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > > > > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > > > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > > > 5 people. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. > > > > (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one > board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by > > 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. > I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and > add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. > > But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more > diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka > it is better for accountability > > > > > > > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > > > the community's influence on the GNSO. > > > > BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which > i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. > > They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. > > > > [Chuck Gomes] I need some > > > help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > > > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > > > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much > > > more valuable than any vote would be. > > > > Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do > just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council > without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great > service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not > related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions > making. Voting is part of that. > > > > Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? > > We would be contributing just as much. > > > > avri > > > > * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 9 22:01:59 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:01:59 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936C491@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <01b401cf8403$6351d770$29f58650$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936D9BC@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <53962ED7.1030001@acm.org> +1 exactly On 09-Jun-14 23:50, Stephane Van Gelder wrote: > In any case, I will repeat what I have already said: questions about > structure should be included in the 360, without any expectations of > what answers they might elicit. Let the review respondents say what they > want to say. Our job here in this group is to make sure they have an > opportunity to say what they want to say. > From ra at dotsportllc.com Mon Jun 9 22:25:46 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:25:46 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Message-ID: <8igos77aktivu1ey0lm545hh.1402351769918@email.android.com> Thanks Stephane. Couldn't have said it better myself! And I thank Chulk for being as respectful as he always is and judicious, as he always is. ?Good that that was called out if someone may have been concerned.? Chuck and I share a healthy respect for each other and consider ourselves friends, but the bigger connection is our desire to grow ICANN in a sustainable manner. To be clear, somewhere in the what we are all saying lays the answer. ?We just need to frame relevant questions to elicit responses that serve a sustainable ICANN.? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com? -------- Original message -------- From: Stephane Van Gelder Date: 06/09/2014 17:50 (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" Cc: Ron Andruff ,gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions No concerns on the back and forth between Ron and you Chuck, especially since many others such as Volker, James, Avri and myself have also weighed in ;) I do agree with you that associating WG failure with GNSO structure issues is misguided. I do not however think that's what Ron is saying, but I will not put words into his mouth and let him correct my assumption if it is false. In any case, I will repeat what I have already said: questions about structure should be included in the 360, without any expectations of what answers they might elicit. Let the review respondents say what they want to say. Our job here in this group is to make sure they have an opportunity to say what they want to say. Thanks, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 9 June 2014 21:57, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >? Ron, > > > > Let me repeat what I have said already, if most of the people in this > group wants to add questions regarding structure, I am fine with that.? I > have said why I opposed that but I am just one person with no more weight > than anyone else. > > > > The reason I asked for a list of failures is because I am not convinced > that "The list of failed WG's is a long one" unless you and I have > different definitions of failure, which is possible.? So it would really > helped me if you tell me which ones you think were failures. > > > > I do not consider the VI WG a failure.? One problem is that the Board gave > an unrealistic time limit.? But even if they had more time, I am not > convinced that a consensus could have been reached. > > > > Also, I don't see how failed WGs would be attributable to GNSO structure, > so please help me understand your thinking? in that regard. > > > > I would like to think that you do not you disagree with ICANN Core Value > 5?? "5. Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to > promote and sustain a competitive environment." > > > > I don't understand this: "In the case of the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so > that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at all. "? The number of > constituencies should have nothing to do with it.? The current structure > gives the NCSG and CSG the same number of votes, so the NCA vote would > matter. > > > > For those of you who may be concerned about the back and forth between Ron > & I, let me assure you that I have the utmost respect for Ron and I > consider him a friend.? We have worked together in the ICANN world for a > long time. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] > *Sent:* Monday, June 09, 2014 12:54 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > Chuck, > > > > Please see my comments in red below. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2014 09:36 > To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > Ron, > > > > Please provide a list of "the other issues, big and small, that have > failed more often than not locked in stalemates" if we are going to > continue this discussion.? That can be done on this list or off list.? I > think that Stephane is correct that the issue is whether or not to include > questions related to structure at this time and not to debate whether > structure is a problem or not.? The reason I entered into the discussion is > because others stated that it was a problem. RA: The list of failed WG's > is a long one Chuck, as you know.? We don't need a list of them to aid us > in what we are trying to do here. The issue here is to include questions > for respondents to help everyone understand if there is a structural > problem or not.? Several of us in the NCPH have indicated that we feel > there is and thus would like to see structural questions asked. > > > > Why do you consider vertical integration a failure?? The fact that no > consensus was reached doesn't mean the effort failed.? It could simply mean > that there was no consensus to be reached.? That should not be taken as > failure.? RA: Any WG that is removed from finishing its task by the Board > of Directors is a failed WG.? Consensus was not the issue.? The issue was > that the VI WG was not able to complete its mandate.? We are living in a > dream world if we think we should always be able to reach consensus. RA: > I agree with you on this.? But I would add that the time may be long > overdue to consider looking at Rough Consensus as a viable option to Full > Consensus (the top 2 of five ICANN levels of consensus).? Rough consensus > provides for those who are not in consensus with the larger WG to detail > their arguments to the contrary just as the U.S. Supreme Court Justices do.? In > cases where we can't reach consensus, that is a good time to let market > forces work unless security and stability are at risk. RA: Can't agree > with this premise.? There is a big gap between reaching consensus and > letting market forces work, but few at ICANN seem to understand that. > Sadly, some may feel that holding out on consensus simply advances the > market forces alternative, which may be more viable to their businesses... > > > > Regarding the GNSO board candidate, has the NCPH candidate been included > in that decision?? One of the purposes of putting an NCA into each house > was to break ties.? That is a key part of the structural design we have. > The CPH has used this several times where the RySG and RrSG have disagreed; > the NCA broke the tie.? RA: So it bears noting that in the case of two > groups in one house the structural design hoped for, works.? In the case of > the NCPH, there are 5 groups, so that NCA vote doesn't have much bearing at > all.? We need to review this structure. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 5:45 PM > > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > > > Dear Chuck, James and all, > > > > As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I > am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I > believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore.? What I am saying is > that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - > Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN.? Those of us who were not > contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to > how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that > mashup... > > > > If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: > > the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is > commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, > as examples.? Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up > the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and > actions. > > > > So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH > is palpable.? It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as > constituencies.? Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review > to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it > better serves the institution and likewise the community. > > > > While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, > the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, > big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, > e.g. > > Vertical Integration.? One result of VI is new registries handpicking even > trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for > $1000's as premium names...? Was that the intended result the Board thought > would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an > outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...?? I don't know > the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of > VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come.? Some may see this example as > conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens > when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. > > > > In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with > a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, > houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, > communities, brands, geos) etc. > > > > We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's > (as far as we can anticipate them) needs.? The survey respondents will give > us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'.? We just have to figure out how to > put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. > > > > A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come > up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with > the most highly-qualified representatives.? When I consider how much > vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result > of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled > at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's > get... > > Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? > > Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community > would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine.? So what > quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were > to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one > from?? Would that raise the bar?? Would such a vetting process remove from > the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, > yes. > > Workable, maybe.? Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, > absolutely... > > > > Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to > generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up.? Otherwise, we will > see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not.? And then > what? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 > > Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > > > > > > > On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > > >> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a > > >> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's > > >> primary role? > > >> > > > > > > The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > > > months of garbage processing.? It just does not work.? We have great > > > trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in > > > electing a Board member this time. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes]? I don't think this > > > has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > > > an issue that needs to be dealt with.?? I would like to think (maybe > > > naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > > > structure.? If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then > > > maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. > > > > It can't be.? If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and > gets worse all the time. > > > > And I certainly can't see discussing it in council.? What is the > difference between discussing it in the house and in council.? the other > house is going to give us advice on how to get along.? Not too likely. > > In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never > been a workable formula. > > > > Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their > neighbors. > > > > And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did.? And indeed when it > gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is > not way to live. > > > > > > > > Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious > > > that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being > > > able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO.? That is a kind of > > > dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. > > > > > > [Chuck > > > Gomes]? I think this is kind of an unfair statement.? The reality is > > > that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round.? If > > > you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to > > > rotate the position among the two houses.? I haven't discussed this > > > with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as > > > long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to > > > commit the time. > > > > Yeah maybe.? But no.? In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people > tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a > candidate that could win because our vote would always split. > > Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. > > Pathetic humor, but funny. > > > > > > > >> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in > > >> general?? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. > > > > On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues.? We mostly all > know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > > > > > > > > The Council is not sperate form the GNSO.? The dysfunction is in both > > > on the NCPH side. > > > > > > Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider > > > adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks > > > like a possible limitation. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > > > be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. > > > > That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. > > Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > > > > > > But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > > > > > > What I am arguing for is gathering information.? Maybe my perception > > > is mine alone.? The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering > > > information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes] > > > As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > > > the information but just question whether we should do it in this > > > exercise, i.e., the timing. > > > > I do not understand the timing issue.? This is the time.? next time is in > 3 years.? There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what > needs to be done. > > > > > > > > > > If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions > > > won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and > > > I am wrong. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > > > questions about structure, I won't fight.? And I didn't say everything > > > is wonderful.? Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced > > > that is largely a factor of structure. > > > > There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key > component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a > critical one. > > You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put > together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with > these alliance changing over time.? Because of the strict diremption in the > voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more > difficult.? When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this > time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > > > > > > > > > > > As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > > > > > > But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > > > everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > > > figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members.? But for the > > > NCPH it would remove a limitation. > > > > > > As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that > > > one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by > > > 5 people. > > > > > > [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. > > > > (: that is far too few people for a voting population.? The idea that one > board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by > > 13 in another is a problem in accountability.? 21 voters is small enough. > I would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and > add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. > > But I know that is a structural change too far.? The point is a large more > diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka > it is better for accountability > > > > > > > > Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on > > > the community's influence on the GNSO. > > > > BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which > i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. > > They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. > > > > [Chuck Gomes] I need some > > > help understanding this.? BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing > > > some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and > > > representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review.? To me that is much > > > more valuable than any vote would be. > > > > Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting.? And she could do > just as well if she had a vote.? Many people do good jobs in the council > without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great > service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Tue Jun 10 14:37:53 2014 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:37:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> Message-ID: <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me:??? Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org From vgreimann at key-Systems.net Tue Jun 10 17:07:11 2014 From: vgreimann at key-Systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:07:11 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of one entity within multiple constituencies. Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. Best, Volker Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: > Dear Chuck, James and all, > > As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last one I > am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of what I > believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is > that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - > Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not > contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to > how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that > mashup... > > If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: > the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is > commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's interests, > as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that make up > the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and > actions. > > So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the NCPH is > palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as > constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious review > to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it > better serves the institution and likewise the community. > > While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the years, > the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other issues, big > and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. > Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking even > trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for > $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board thought > would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that just an > outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know > the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of > VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as > conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what happens > when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. > > In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on with a > full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, houses, > NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, > brands, geos) etc. > > We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and tomorrow's (as > far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will give us > the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how to put > a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. > > A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also come > up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board with the > most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting > prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my > participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at how > very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... > Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? > Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community > would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what quality > of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put > forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? Would > that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board > those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. > Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, > absolutely... > > Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to > generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we will > see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then > what? > > Kind regards, > > RA > > > Ron Andruff > dotSport LLC > www.lifedotsport.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 > Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > > > On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>> primary role? >>> >> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great >> trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in >> electing a Board member this time. > > [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then >> maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. > It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and gets > worse all the time. > > And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the difference > between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is going > to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. > In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never > been a workable formula. > > Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their > neighbors. > > And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it > gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but that is > not way to live. > >> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious >> that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being >> able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of >> dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. > > [Chuck >> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is >> that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If >> you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to >> rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this >> with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as >> long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to >> commit the time. > Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH people > tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a > candidate that could win because our vote would always split. > Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. > Pathetic humor, but funny. > >>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >>> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. > On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all > know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > >> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both >> on the NCPH side. >> >> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider >> adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks >> like a possible limitation. > > [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. > That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. > Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >> >> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception >> is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering >> information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. > > [Chuck Gomes] >> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >> exercise, i.e., the timing. > I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is in 3 > years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what needs > to be done. > > >> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions >> won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and >> I am wrong. > > [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything >> is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced >> that is largely a factor of structure. > There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key component > to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. > You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you put > together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with > these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption in the > voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much more > difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with this > time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > >> >> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >> >> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >> >> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that >> one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by >> 5 people. > > [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. > > (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one > board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by > 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small enough. I > would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and add > the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. > But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large more > diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, aka it > is better for accountability > >> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on >> the community's influence on the GNSO. > BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee (which i > was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. > They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. > > [Chuck Gomes] I need some >> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing >> some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and >> representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much >> more valuable than any vote would be. > Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do > just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council > without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great > service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues are not > related. The community selects three people to contribute to the decisions > making. Voting is part of that. > > Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? > We would be contributing just as much. > > avri > > * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness > -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 10 17:28:08 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:28:08 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> Message-ID: <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Hi, I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. avri On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: > > One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to > devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of one > entity within multiple constituencies. > Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the entire > structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by specialized > interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. > > This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational > issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. > > Best, > > Volker > > > > Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >> Dear Chuck, James and all, >> >> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >> one I >> am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of >> what I >> believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying is >> that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - >> Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were >> not >> contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting >> similar to >> how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >> that >> mashup... >> >> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >> James, re: >> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is >> commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >> interests, >> as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that >> make up >> the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and >> actions. >> >> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >> NCPH is >> palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as >> constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious >> review >> to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it >> better serves the institution and likewise the community. >> >> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >> years, >> the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other >> issues, big >> and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, >> e.g. >> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking >> even >> trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for >> $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board >> thought >> would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that >> just an >> outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know >> the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a >> result of >> VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >> conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >> happens >> when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >> >> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on >> with a >> full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, >> houses, >> NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, >> brands, geos) etc. >> >> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >> tomorrow's (as >> far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will >> give us >> the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how >> to put >> a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. >> >> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also >> come >> up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board >> with the >> most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much vetting >> prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my >> participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at >> how >> very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... >> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? >> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the community >> would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what >> quality >> of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to put >> forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >> Would >> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board >> those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >> absolutely... >> >> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to >> generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we >> will >> see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And then >> what? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> >> Ron Andruff >> dotSport LLC >> www.lifedotsport.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> Questions >> >> >> >> >> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>> primary role? >>>> >>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great >>> trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in >>> electing a Board member this time. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then >>> maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and >> gets >> worse all the time. >> >> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >> difference >> between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is >> going >> to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. >> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has never >> been a workable formula. >> >> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their >> neighbors. >> >> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when it >> gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but >> that is >> not way to live. >> >>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious >>> that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being >>> able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of >>> dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >> >> [Chuck >>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is >>> that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If >>> you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to >>> rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this >>> with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as >>> long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to >>> commit the time. >> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >> people >> tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a >> candidate that could win because our vote would always split. >> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >> funny. >> Pathetic humor, but funny. >> >>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >>>> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly all >> know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >> >>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both >>> on the NCPH side. >>> >>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider >>> adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks >>> like a possible limitation. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>> >>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception >>> is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering >>> information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] >>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is >> in 3 >> years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what >> needs >> to be done. >> >> >>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions >>> won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and >>> I am wrong. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything >>> is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced >>> that is largely a factor of structure. >> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >> component >> to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical >> one. >> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you >> put >> together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with >> these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption >> in the >> voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much >> more >> difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with >> this >> time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. >> >>> >>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>> >>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>> >>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that >>> one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by >>> 5 people. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >> >> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one >> board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by >> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >> enough. I >> would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and >> add >> the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. >> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large >> more >> diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, >> aka it >> is better for accountability >> >>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on >>> the community's influence on the GNSO. >> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >> (which i >> was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. >> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing >>> some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and >>> representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much >>> more valuable than any vote would be. >> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do >> just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council >> without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great >> service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues >> are not >> related. The community selects three people to contribute to the >> decisions >> making. Voting is part of that. >> >> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >> teams? >> We would be contributing just as much. >> >> avri >> >> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >> > From jbladel at godaddy.com Tue Jun 10 17:44:29 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:44:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <53974028.4030609@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this is enforced on a community-wide basis. J. On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > >Hi, > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not sure >it is followed by all with equal fervor. > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > >avri > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of one >> entity within multiple constituencies. >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the entire >> structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by specialized >> interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. >> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >>> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >>> one I >>> am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of >>> what I >>> believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying >>>is >>> that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - >>> Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were >>> not >>> contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting >>> similar to >>> how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >>> that >>> mashup... >>> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >>> James, re: >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is >>> commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >>> interests, >>> as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that >>> make up >>> the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and >>> actions. >>> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >>> NCPH is >>> palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as >>> constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious >>> review >>> to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it >>> better serves the institution and likewise the community. >>> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >>> years, >>> the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other >>> issues, big >>> and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, >>> e.g. >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking >>> even >>> trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for >>> $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board >>> thought >>> would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that >>> just an >>> outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't >>>know >>> the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a >>> result of >>> VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >>> conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >>> happens >>> when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >>> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on >>> with a >>> full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, >>> houses, >>> NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, >>> brands, geos) etc. >>> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >>> tomorrow's (as >>> far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will >>> give us >>> the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how >>> to put >>> a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. >>> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also >>> come >>> up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board >>> with the >>> most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much >>>vetting >>> prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my >>> participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at >>> how >>> very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's >>>get... >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >>>methodology? >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >>>community >>> would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what >>> quality >>> of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to >>>put >>> forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >>> Would >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board >>> those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >>> absolutely... >>> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to >>> generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we >>> will >>> see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And >>>then >>> what? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> dotSport LLC >>> www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>> Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>>> primary role? >>>>> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great >>>> trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in >>>> electing a Board member this time. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then >>>> maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and >>> gets >>> worse all the time. >>> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >>> difference >>> between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is >>> going >>> to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >>>never >>> been a workable formula. >>> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their >>> neighbors. >>> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when >>>it >>> gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but >>> that is >>> not way to live. >>> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious >>>> that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being >>>> able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of >>>> dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >>> >>> [Chuck >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is >>>> that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If >>>> you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to >>>> rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this >>>> with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as >>>> long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to >>>> commit the time. >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >>> people >>> tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a >>> candidate that could win because our vote would always split. >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >>> funny. >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >>> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >>>>> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >>>all >>> know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >>> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both >>>> on the NCPH side. >>>> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider >>>> adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks >>>> like a possible limitation. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception >>>> is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering >>>> information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is >>> in 3 >>> years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what >>> needs >>> to be done. >>> >>> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions >>>> won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and >>>> I am wrong. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything >>>> is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced >>>> that is largely a factor of structure. >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >>> component >>> to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical >>> one. >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you >>> put >>> together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with >>> these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption >>> in the >>> voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much >>> more >>> difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with >>> this >>> time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. >>> >>>> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>>> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>>> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that >>>> one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by >>>> 5 people. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >>> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that >>>one >>> board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >>> enough. I >>> would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and >>> add >>> the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large >>> more >>> diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, >>> aka it >>> is better for accountability >>> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on >>>> the community's influence on the GNSO. >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >>> (which i >>> was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing >>>> some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and >>>> representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much >>>> more valuable than any vote would be. >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could >>>do >>> just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the >>>council >>> without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great >>> service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues >>> are not >>> related. The community selects three people to contribute to the >>> decisions >>> making. Voting is part of that. >>> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >>> teams? >>> We would be contributing just as much. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >>> >> From michele at blacknight.com Tue Jun 10 17:48:25 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:48:25 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been already. I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places on policies etc., that benefited them I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. But voting is a different matter. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this is enforced on a community-wide basis. J. On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > >Hi, > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > >avri > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of >> one entity within multiple constituencies. >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. >> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >>> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >>>that mashup... >>> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >>> James, re: >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another >>> in their interests and actions. >>> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >>> the community. >>> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >>> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >>> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all >>> of these critical questions. >>> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >>>methodology? >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >>> Would >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >>>absolutely... >>> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we >>>like it or not. And then what? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> dotSport LLC >>> www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>> Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>>> primary role? >>>>> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely >>>> in electing a Board member this time. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >>> and gets worse all the time. >>> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not >>>too likely. >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >>>never been a workable formula. >>> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >>> their neighbors. >>> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. >>> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >>> >>> [Chuck >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >>> split. >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >>> funny. >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >>> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >>> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >>>> both on the NCPH side. >>>> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >>> out what needs to be done. >>> >>> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, >>> but a critical one. >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was >>> far more dynamic in the past. >>> >>>> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>>> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>>> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected >>>> by >>>> 5 people. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >>> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one >>>instance and by >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit >>>more depth. >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability >>> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this >>> mishigas*. >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part >>>of that. >>> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >>> teams? >>> We would be contributing just as much. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >>> >> From svg at milathan.com Tue Jun 10 21:58:28 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:58:28 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > > It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been > already. > > I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places > on policies etc., that benefited them > > I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of > some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling > more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. > But voting is a different matter. > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM > To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to > their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if > they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this > is enforced on a community-wide basis. > > J. > > > On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about > >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many > >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have > >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > > > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the > >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. > > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not > >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. > > > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the > >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > > > >avri > > > > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: > >> > >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to > >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of > >> one entity within multiple constituencies. > >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the > >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by > >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one > constituency. > >> > >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational > >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Volker > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: > >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, > >>> > >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last > >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an > >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to > >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now > >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - > >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties > >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how > >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to > >>>that mashup... > >>> > >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment > >>> James, re: > >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it > >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's > >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various > >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another > >>> in their interests and actions. > >>> > >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the > >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different > >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a > >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the > >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise > >>> the community. > >>> > >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the > >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the > >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not > >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. > >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries > >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own > >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the > >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that > >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of > >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I > >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will > >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as > >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what > >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. > >>> > >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get > >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... > >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants > >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. > >>> > >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and > >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey > >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We > >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all > >>> of these critical questions. > >>> > >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has > >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the > >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I > >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via > >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this > >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those > >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... > >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical > >>>methodology? > >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the > >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can > >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each > >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates > >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? > >>> Would > >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the > >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? > Radical, yes. > >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, > >>>absolutely... > >>> > >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope > >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. > >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we > >>>like it or not. And then what? > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> RA > >>> > >>> > >>> Ron Andruff > >>> dotSport LLC > >>> www.lifedotsport.com > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 > >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > >>> Questions > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a > >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's > >>>>> primary role? > >>>>> > >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have > >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely > >>>> in electing a Board member this time. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, > >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. > >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years > >>> and gets worse all the time. > >>> > >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the > >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the > >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not > >>>too likely. > >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has > >>>never been a workable formula. > >>> > >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of > >>> their neighbors. > >>> > >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed > >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a > >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. > >>> > >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is > >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from > >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That > >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. > >>> > >>> [Chuck > >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality > >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. > >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore > >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't > >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be > >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership > >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. > >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH > >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could > >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always > >>> split. > >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather > >>> funny. > >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. > >>> > >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO > >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that > directly. > >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly > >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > >>> > >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in > >>>> both on the NCPH side. > >>>> > >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever > >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, > >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. > >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. > >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > >>>> > >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my > >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in > >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] > >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this > >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. > >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time > >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find > >>> out what needs to be done. > >>> > >>> > >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the > >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is > >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say > >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am > >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. > >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key > >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, > >>> but a critical one. > >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or > >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to > >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict > >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus > >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in > >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was > >>> far more dynamic in the past. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > >>>> > >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. > >>>> > >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem > >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected > >>>> by > >>>> 5 people. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. > >>> > >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea > >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one > >>>instance and by > >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small > >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the > >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit > >>>more depth. > >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a > >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for > >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > >>> > >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation > >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. > >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee > >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this > >>> mishigas*. > >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some > >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is > >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group > >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is > >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. > >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she > >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs > >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. > >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains > >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects > >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part > >>>of that. > >>> > >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage > >>> teams? > >>> We would be contributing just as much. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness > >>> > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Tue Jun 10 22:11:26 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:11:26 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: Staff is looking into this and will provide information shortly. Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:58 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: James M. Bladel; Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > wrote: It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been already. I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places on policies etc., that benefited them I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. But voting is a different matter. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this is enforced on a community-wide basis. J. On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" > wrote: > >Hi, > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > >avri > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of >> one entity within multiple constituencies. >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. >> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >>> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >>>that mashup... >>> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >>> James, re: >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another >>> in their interests and actions. >>> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >>> the community. >>> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >>> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >>> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all >>> of these critical questions. >>> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >>>methodology? >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >>> Would >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >>>absolutely... >>> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we >>>like it or not. And then what? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> dotSport LLC >>> www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>> Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>>> primary role? >>>>> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely >>>> in electing a Board member this time. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >>> and gets worse all the time. >>> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not >>>too likely. >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >>>never been a workable formula. >>> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >>> their neighbors. >>> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. >>> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >>> >>> [Chuck >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >>> split. >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >>> funny. >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >>> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >>> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >>>> both on the NCPH side. >>>> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >>> out what needs to be done. >>> >>> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, >>> but a critical one. >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was >>> far more dynamic in the past. >>> >>>> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>>> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>>> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected >>>> by >>>> 5 people. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >>> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one >>>instance and by >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit >>>more depth. >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability >>> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this >>> mishigas*. >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part >>>of that. >>> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >>> teams? >>> We would be contributing just as much. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Jun 10 23:57:09 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:57:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <53974028.4030609@acm.org> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936E60C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> For full transparency it is essential to deal with the fact that some groups have just organizational members (e.g., RySG) with individual delegates while some have organizational and individual members. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:28 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Hi, I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. avri On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: > > One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to > devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of one > entity within multiple constituencies. > Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the > entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by > specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. > > This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational > issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. > > Best, > > Volker > > > > Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >> Dear Chuck, James and all, >> >> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >> one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >> understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the >> fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now appears to >> be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all >> of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties were jammed >> together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was >> created post WWII, and we all know what happened to that mashup... >> >> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >> James, re: >> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in >> their interests and actions. >> >> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >> the community. >> >> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >> years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >> other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >> locked in stalemates, e.g. >> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking >> even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to >> sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result >> the Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO >> WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill >> its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that >> things we have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for >> decades to come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but >> it is not so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO >> doesn't work as it could. >> >> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on >> with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder >> groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >> >> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of >> these critical questions. >> >> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also >> come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN >> Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >> consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >> the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >> year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board >> members that come through the SG's get... >> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? >> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >> community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. >> So what quality of Board would we get if each >> constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >> for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >> Would >> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >> Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >> absolutely... >> >> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >> to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, >> we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or >> not. And then what? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> >> Ron Andruff >> dotSport LLC >> www.lifedotsport.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> Questions >> >> >> >> >> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>> primary role? >>>> >>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great >>> trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in >>> electing a Board member this time. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >> and gets worse all the time. >> >> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >> difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >> other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too >> likely. >> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >> never been a workable formula. >> >> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >> their neighbors. >> >> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when >> it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, >> but that is not way to live. >> >>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever >>> being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a >>> kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >> >> [Chuck >>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is >>> that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If >>> you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to >>> rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this >>> with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as >>> long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to >>> commit the time. >> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever >> put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >> split. >> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >> funny. >> Pathetic humor, but funny. >> >>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >> all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >> >>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >>> both on the NCPH side. >>> >>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >>> that looks like a possible limitation. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>> >>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception >>> is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering >>> information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] >>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >> out what needs to be done. >> >> >>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >>> wonderful and I am wrong. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but >> a critical one. >> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, >> alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the >> council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far >> more dynamic in the past. >> >>> >>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>> >>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>> >>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that >>> one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by >>> 5 people. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >> >> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that one >> board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by >> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >> enough. I >> would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and >> add >> the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. >> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large >> more >> diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, >> aka it >> is better for accountability >> >>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on >>> the community's influence on the GNSO. >> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >> (which i >> was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. >> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >> >> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing >>> some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and >>> representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much >>> more valuable than any vote would be. >> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could do >> just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the council >> without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great >> service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues >> are not >> related. The community selects three people to contribute to the >> decisions >> making. Voting is part of that. >> >> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >> teams? >> We would be contributing just as much. >> >> avri >> >> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >> > From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Jun 11 00:15:49 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:15:49 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936E669@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Volker, I agree that this is a concern but I do not think it relates to our 360 questions unless I am missing something. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:07 PM To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of one entity within multiple constituencies. Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. Best, Volker Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: > Dear Chuck, James and all, > > As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last > one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding > of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I > am saying is that the structure we have now appears to be serving only > two groups - Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those > of us who were not contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th > hour meeting similar to how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we > all know what happened to that mashup... > > If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment James, re: > the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it > is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's > interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various > bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another in > their interests and actions. > > So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the > NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different > views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a > serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the > organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise the community. > > While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the > years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the > other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, e.g. > Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking > even trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to > sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the > Board thought would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG > or was that just an outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its > mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that things we > have yet to see as a result of VI will haunt ICANN for decades to > come. Some may see this example as conflating issues, but it is not > so much that as an example of what happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. > > In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on > with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder > groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants > (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. > > We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and > tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey > respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We > just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. > > A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also > come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN > Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider > how much vetting prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com > (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this year) I am > amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's get... > Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical methodology? > Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the > community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. > So what quality of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder > group were to put forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and > select one from? Would that raise the bar? Would such a vetting > process remove from the Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. > Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, > absolutely... > > Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope > to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, > we will see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or > not. And then what? > > Kind regards, > > RA > > > Ron Andruff > dotSport LLC > www.lifedotsport.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 > Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > > On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>> primary role? >>> >> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great >> trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in >> electing a Board member this time. > > [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. > It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and > gets worse all the time. > > And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the > difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the > other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. > In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has > never been a workable formula. > > Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of > their neighbors. > > And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when > it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but > that is not way to live. > >> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious >> that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being >> able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of >> dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. > > [Chuck >> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is >> that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If >> you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to >> rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this >> with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as >> long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to >> commit the time. > Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH > people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever > put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always split. > Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather funny. > Pathetic humor, but funny. > >>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. > On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly > all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > >> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both >> on the NCPH side. >> >> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider >> adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks >> like a possible limitation. > > [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. > That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. > Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >> >> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception >> is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering >> information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. > > [Chuck Gomes] >> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >> exercise, i.e., the timing. > I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is > in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out > what needs to be done. > > >> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >> wonderful and I am wrong. > > [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. > There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key > component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical one. > You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you > put together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, > with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict > diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, > alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in the > council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. > >> >> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >> >> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >> >> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by >> 5 people. > > [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. > > (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that > one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and > by > 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small > enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the > AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. > But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large > more diverse representative voting populations makes for better > democracy, aka it is better for accountability > >> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >> on the community's influence on the GNSO. > BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee > (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. > They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. > > [Chuck Gomes] I need some >> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >> much more valuable than any vote would be. > Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could > do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the > council without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan > provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. > The two issues are not related. The community selects three people to > contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part of that. > > Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage teams? > We would be contributing just as much. > > avri > > * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness > -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. From marika.konings at icann.org Wed Jun 11 08:10:16 2014 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 01:10:16 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: Having looked at the different SG/C charters, I have found the following provisions that deal with membership/voting in more than one SG/C: RySG (see http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the_ gTLD_Registries_Stakeholder_Group.pdf) * A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group or constituency in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for voting membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. RrSG (current charter does not appear to address this issue, but it is covered in the revised charter that is currently posted for public comment, see http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14- en.pdf) * Potential Conflicts with another Stakeholder Group (SG) > If a Member serves as a registrar with no unaffiliated third-party > registrants, or is under common ownership with an entity that in the last 12 > months: has voted in another ICANN SG or any Constituency of another SG; or > holds a signed Registry contract with ICANN that includes an exemption from > the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9 of the 2013 standard > registry contract) that prohibits a Registry to directly or indirectly show > any preference or provide any special consideration to any registrar with > respect to operational access to registry systems and related registry > services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for such preferences or > considerations are made available to all registrars on substantially similar > terms and subject to substantially similar conditions; then their Registered > or Non-Registered representatives shall not be eligible to hold office in the > RrSG for the Executive Committee, NomCom, or GNSO, or any other future > electable RrSG position. In addition, a Voting Member cannot have a > representative who is also a voting member or represents a voting member in > another SG. > > Any disagreement regarding whether an individual is eligible to hold office > shall be decided by a majority vote of the RrSG. NPOC (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter) * Committee Structure and Officer Requirements - 2.2 Eligibility * Sections 2.2 through 2.10 provide rules and requirements for all NPOC leadership positions elected by the membership and, as such, apply to the Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretariat, and Chairs of the Membership, Policy, and Communication Committees. * To be eligible for a committee officer position, candidates must: * * 2.2.1 Have been his/her organization?s representative of record, in good standing, for a period of at least six (6) months; * * 2.2.2 Not already hold a committee leadership position; * * 2.2.3 Not be currently serving as a GNSO Council Member; and * * 2.2.4 Not be NPOC Chair if serving on the ICANN Nominating Committee, as an officer of another ICANN constituency or as an officer of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). NCUC (see current charter at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/) * B. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: > 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold > government office and/or elect government officials > > 2. Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit > of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) > > 3. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with > ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization NCSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf) * 2.2.1. Ineligible organizations. > The membership of the NCSG specifically excludes: > > 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government > office and/or elect government officials; > 2. Commercial organizations and associations that advocate for the benefit > of commercial entities (even if they are non-?-profit in form); > > 3. Organizations that are represented in ICANN through another Supporting > Organization specified in the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Stakeholder Group; > > 4. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN; > > 5. Government organizations or government departments whether local, > regional or national; and > 6. Intergovernmental organizations whose membership primarily includes > nation states. ISPCP (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ) * No specific provision found IPC (see current charter at http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/) * No specific provision found BC (see current charter at http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm) * Membership criteria: 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, or otherwise related to domain name supply, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations for whom a minority of members may belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. CSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf) * No specific provision found Obviously I may have missed something, so please feel free to correct or add to this information, but in short it looks like some SG/C deal with this issue through the membership or officer eligibility criteria while others look more specifically at who is eligible to vote while some do not appear to have any specific provisions in place. Best regards, Marika From: Stephane Van Gelder Date: Tuesday 10 June 2014 23:58 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: "James M. Bladel" , Avri Doria , "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > > It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been already. > > I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places on > policies etc., that benefited them > > I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of > some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling more > transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. But > voting is a different matter. > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > On Behalf Of James M. Bladel > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM > To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to their > bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if they are > voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this is enforced > on a community-wide basis. > > J. > > > On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >> >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >> >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >> >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. >> > >> >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >> >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. >> > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not >> >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. >> > >> >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >> >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. >> > >> >avri >> > >> > >> >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >>> >> >>> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >>> >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of >>> >> one entity within multiple constituencies. >>> >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the >>> >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by >>> >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one >>> constituency. >>> >> >>> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >>> >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Volker >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Am 06.06.2014 23 :44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >>>> >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >>>> >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >>>> >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to >>>> >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now >>>> >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - >>>> >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties >>>> >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how >>>> >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >>>> >>>that mashup... >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >>>> >>> James, re: >>>> >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >>>> >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >>>> >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >>>> >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another >>>> >>> in their interests and actions. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >>>> >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >>>> >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >>>> >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >>>> >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >>>> >>> the community. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >>>> >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >>>> >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >>>> >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. >>>> >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries >>>> >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own >>>> >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the >>>> >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that >>>> >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of >>>> >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I >>>> >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will >>>> >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >>>> >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >>>> >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get >>>> >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... >>>> >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >>>> >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >>>> >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >>>> >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >>>> >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all >>>> >>> of these critical questions. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has >>>> >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the >>>> >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >>>> >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >>>> >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >>>> >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those >>>> >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... >>>> >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >>>> >>>methodology? >>>> >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >>>> >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can >>>> >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each >>>> >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >>>> >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >>>> >>> Would >>>> >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >>>> >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, >>>> yes. >>>> >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >>>> >>>absolutely... >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >>>> >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. >>>> >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we >>>> >>>like it or not. And then what? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Kind regards, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> RA >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Ron Andruff >>>> >>> dotSport LLC >>>> >>> www.lifedotsport.com >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>>> >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>> >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >>>> >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>> >>> Questions >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>>>> >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>>>> >>>>> primary role? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>>>> >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have >>>>> >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely >>>>> >>>> in electing a Board member this time. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>>>> >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>>>> >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>>>> >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>>>> >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >>>>> >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >>>> >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >>>> >>> and gets worse all the time. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >>>> >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >>>> >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not >>>> >>>too likely. >>>> >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >>>> >>>never been a workable formula. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >>>> >>> their neighbors. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed >>>> >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a >>>> >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >>>>> >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from >>>>> >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That >>>>> >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or >>>>> later. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [Chuck >>>>> >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality >>>>> >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. >>>>> >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore >>>>> >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't >>>>> >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be >>>>> >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership >>>>> >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. >>>> >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >>>> >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could >>>> >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >>>> >>> split. >>>> >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >>>> >>> funny. >>>> >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >>>>>> >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that >>>>>> directly. >>>> >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >>>> >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >>>>> >>>> both on the NCPH side. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >>>>> >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >>>>> >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>>>> >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >>>> >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >>>> >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>>>> >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my >>>>> >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in >>>>> >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >>>>> >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>>>> >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>>>> >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >>>> >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >>>> >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >>>> >>> out what needs to be done. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >>>>> >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >>>>> >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>>>> >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >>>>> >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >>>>> >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >>>> >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >>>> >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, >>>> >>> but a critical one. >>>> >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >>>> >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >>>> >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >>>> >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus >>>> >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in >>>> >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was >>>> >>> far more dynamic in the past. >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>>>> >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>>>> >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>>>> >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >>>>> >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected >>>>> >>>> by >>>>> >>>> 5 people. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea >>>> >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one >>>> >>>instance and by >>>> >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >>>> >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the >>>> >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit >>>> >>>more depth. >>>> >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a >>>> >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for >>>> >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >>>>> >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. >>>> >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >>>> >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this >>>> >>> mishigas*. >>>> >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>>>> >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >>>>> >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >>>>> >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >>>>> >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. >>>> >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she >>>> >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs >>>> >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. >>>> >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains >>>> >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects >>>> >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part >>>> >>>of that. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >>>> >>> teams? >>>> >>> We would be contributing just as much. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> avri >>>> >>> >>>> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vgreimann at key-Systems.net Wed Jun 11 08:12:36 2014 From: vgreimann at key-Systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:12:36 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: <53980F74.2040204@key-systems.net> Also, voting rights may not be the issue, but being able to chose your constituency may be. For example an entity that most closely fits the membership profile of one constituency still choosing to take voting rights instead in a constituency that makes more tactical sense. Best, Volker Am 10.06.2014 19:44, schrieb James M. Bladel: > I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to > their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting > if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how > this is enforced on a community-wide basis. > > J. > > > On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >> being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >> divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >> staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. >> >> But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >> requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. >> I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not sure >> it is followed by all with equal fervor. >> >> Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >> various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >>> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >>> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of one >>> entity within multiple constituencies. >>> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the entire >>> structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by specialized >>> interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. >>> >>> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >>> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Volker >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >>>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >>>> >>>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >>>> one I >>>> am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an understanding of >>>> what I >>>> believe Avri and I are trying to bring to the fore. What I am saying >>>> is >>>> that the structure we have now appears to be serving only two groups - >>>> Registries and Registrars - within all of ICANN. Those of us who were >>>> not >>>> contracted parties were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting >>>> similar to >>>> how Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >>>> that >>>> mashup... >>>> >>>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >>>> James, re: >>>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it is >>>> commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >>>> interests, >>>> as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various bodies that >>>> make up >>>> the NPCH could not be further from one another in their interests and >>>> actions. >>>> >>>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >>>> NCPH is >>>> palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different views as >>>> constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a serious >>>> review >>>> to see if there are other ways to structure the organization so that it >>>> better serves the institution and likewise the community. >>>> >>>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >>>> years, >>>> the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the other >>>> issues, big >>>> and small, that have failed more often than not locked in stalemates, >>>> e.g. >>>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries handpicking >>>> even >>>> trademarked names and putting them into their own registrar to sell for >>>> $1000's as premium names... Was that the intended result the Board >>>> thought >>>> would happen when they took that over from the GNSO WG or was that >>>> just an >>>> outcome of a failure of the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't >>>> know >>>> the answer, but I do believe that things we have yet to see as a >>>> result of >>>> VI will haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >>>> conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >>>> happens >>>> when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >>>> >>>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get on >>>> with a >>>> full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... stakeholder groups, >>>> houses, >>>> NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants (constituencies, communities, >>>> brands, geos) etc. >>>> >>>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >>>> tomorrow's (as >>>> far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey respondents will >>>> give us >>>> the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We just have to figure out how >>>> to put >>>> a survey together that asks all of these critical questions. >>>> >>>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has also >>>> come >>>> up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the ICANN Board >>>> with the >>>> most highly-qualified representatives. When I consider how much >>>> vetting >>>> prospective Board members go through via the Nom Com (as a result of my >>>> participation in 2013 and again this year) I am amazed and appalled at >>>> how >>>> very little vetting those Board members that come through the SG's >>>> get... >>>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >>>> methodology? >>>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >>>> community >>>> would seize on it for all the good reasons one can imagine. So what >>>> quality >>>> of Board would we get if each constituency/stakeholder group were to >>>> put >>>> forward three candidates for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >>>> Would >>>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the Board >>>> those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >>>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >>>> absolutely... >>>> >>>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope to >>>> generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. Otherwise, we >>>> will >>>> see change coming from the top down, whether we like it or not. And >>>> then >>>> what? >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> RA >>>> >>>> >>>> Ron Andruff >>>> dotSport LLC >>>> www.lifedotsport.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >>>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>>> Questions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>>>> primary role? >>>>>> >>>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have great >>>>> trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely in >>>>> electing a Board member this time. >>>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, then >>>>> maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >>>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years and >>>> gets >>>> worse all the time. >>>> >>>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >>>> difference >>>> between discussing it in the house and in council. the other house is >>>> going >>>> to give us advice on how to get along. Not too likely. >>>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >>>> never >>>> been a workable formula. >>>> >>>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of their >>>> neighbors. >>>> >>>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed when >>>> it >>>> gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a compromise, but >>>> that is >>>> not way to live. >>>> >>>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is obvious >>>>> that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from ever being >>>>> able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That is a kind of >>>>> dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >>>> [Chuck >>>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality is >>>>> that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. If >>>>> you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore ways to >>>>> rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't discussed this >>>>> with others in the CPH but I personally would be fine with that as >>>>> long as the candidates have good leadership skills and are able to >>>>> commit the time. >>>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >>>> people >>>> tell me this that they realized there was no way we could ever put up a >>>> candidate that could win because our vote would always split. >>>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >>>> funny. >>>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >>>> >>>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO in >>>>>> general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >>>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >>>> all >>>> know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >>>> >>>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in both >>>>> on the NCPH side. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever consider >>>>> adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, that looks >>>>> like a possible limitation. >>>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >>>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >>>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>>>> >>>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my perception >>>>> is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in gathering >>>>> information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >>>> [Chuck Gomes] >>>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >>>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time is >>>> in 3 >>>> years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find out what >>>> needs >>>> to be done. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the questions >>>>> won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is wonderful and >>>>> I am wrong. >>>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say everything >>>>> is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am not convinced >>>>> that is largely a factor of structure. >>>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >>>> component >>>> to things working out well or purely, not the only one, but a critical >>>> one. >>>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or you >>>> put >>>> together a structure that allows many different alliances to form, with >>>> these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict diremption >>>> in the >>>> voting structure, house versus house, SG versus SG, alliances are much >>>> more >>>> difficult. When I compare the days in the council my last time, with >>>> this >>>> time, the alliance making was far more dynamic in the past. >>>> >>>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>>>> >>>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>>>> >>>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem that >>>>> one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected by >>>>> 5 people. >>>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >>>> >>>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea that >>>> one >>>> board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one instance and by >>>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >>>> enough. I >>>> would actually like to see us take a page out of the AT-Large book and >>>> add >>>> the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit more depth. >>>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a large >>>> more >>>> diverse representative voting populations makes for better democracy, >>>> aka it >>>> is better for accountability >>>> >>>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation on >>>>> the community's influence on the GNSO. >>>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >>>> (which i >>>> was one but dissented from) that came up with this mishigas*. >>>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >>>> >>>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is providing >>>>> some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group and >>>>> representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is much >>>>> more valuable than any vote would be. >>>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she could >>>> do >>>> just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs in the >>>> council >>>> without needing to give up their vote to do so. Jonathan provides great >>>> service as a neutral chair, yet he retains his vote. The two issues >>>> are not >>>> related. The community selects three people to contribute to the >>>> decisions >>>> making. Voting is part of that. >>>> >>>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >>>> teams? >>>> We would be contributing just as much. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >>>> > -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. From vgreimann at key-Systems.net Wed Jun 11 08:24:10 2014 From: vgreimann at key-Systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:24:10 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: <5398122A.7000408@key-systems.net> Hi stephane, even being able to chose where to vote may be problematic, actually. If for example a vertically integrated registry with a small registrar operation choses to vote as registrars, as their interests are already well maintained within the RySG without their vote, that would skeqw the balance between the groups. Similarly, a dotBrand operator opting to vote as a registry as the IPC "does not need" another voter would extend the influence of one stakeholder group into another. Best regards, Volker Am 10.06.2014 23:58, schrieb Stephane Van Gelder: > I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all > constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member > from being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. > > Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? > > St?phane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur > Milathan LTD > "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.Milathan.com > ---------------- > Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > > > On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > > wrote: > > > It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't > been already. > > I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple > places on policies etc., that benefited them > > I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having > membership (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we > were to start selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want > to follow the ISPs more closely. But voting is a different matter. > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > ] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM > To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes > to their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members > from voting if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is > not clear to me how this is enforced on a community-wide basis. > > J. > > > On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" > wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents > about > >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many > >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have > >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > > > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the > >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public > web site. > > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not > >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. > > > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the > >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > > > >avri > > > > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: > >> > >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is > necessary to > >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of > >> one entity within multiple constituencies. > >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the > >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by > >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one > constituency. > >> > >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational > >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an > entity. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Volker > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 06.06.2014 23 :44, schrieb Ron Andruff: > >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, > >>> > >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since > my last > >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an > >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to > >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now > >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and > Registrars - > >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties > >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how > >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to > >>>that mashup... > >>> > >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment > >>> James, re: > >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our > view) it > >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's > >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various > >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another > >>> in their interests and actions. > >>> > >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord > within the > >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather > different > >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house > structure a > >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the > >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise > >>> the community. > >>> > >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred > over the > >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the > >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not > >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. > >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries > >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into > their own > >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the > >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took > that > >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of > >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, > but I > >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will > >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as > >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what > >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. > >>> > >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get > >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... > >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new > entrants > >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. > >>> > >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and > >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey > >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We > >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all > >>> of these critical questions. > >>> > >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has > >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the > >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. > When I > >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via > >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again > this > >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those > >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... > >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical > >>>methodology? > >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the > >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can > >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each > >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three > candidates > >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? > >>> Would > >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the > >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? > Radical, yes. > >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of > Directors, > >>>absolutely... > >>> > >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if > we hope > >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. > >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, > whether we > >>>like it or not. And then what? > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> RA > >>> > >>> > >>> Ron Andruff > >>> dotSport LLC > >>> www.lifedotsport.com > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > ] > >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 > >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > >>> Questions > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has > caused a > >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's > >>>>> primary role? > >>>>> > >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have > >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely > >>>> in electing a Board member this time. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good > point of > >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think > (maybe > >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the > existing > >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, > >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. > >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years > >>> and gets worse all the time. > >>> > >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the > >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the > >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not > >>>too likely. > >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has > >>>never been a workable formula. > >>> > >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of > >>> their neighbors. > >>> > >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed > >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a > >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. > >>> > >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is > >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from > >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That > >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner > or later. > >>> > >>> [Chuck > >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality > >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last > round. > >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore > >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't > >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be > >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership > >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. > >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even > have CPH > >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could > >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would > always > >>> split. > >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is > rather > >>> funny. > >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. > >>> > >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or > the GNSO > >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to > that directly. > >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We > mostly > >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > >>> > >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in > >>>> both on the NCPH side. > >>>> > >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever > >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD > space, > >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. > >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. > >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council > members. > >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > >>>> > >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my > >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't > intersted in > >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] > >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to > gathering > >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this > >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. > >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next > time > >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to > find > >>> out what needs to be done. > >>> > >>> > >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the > >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that > everything is > >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say > >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful > but I am > >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. > >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key > >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, > >>> but a critical one. > >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or > >>> you put together a structure that allows many different > alliances to > >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the > strict > >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus > >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in > >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was > >>> far more dynamic in the past. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > >>>> > >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to > do is > >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But > for the > >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. > >>>> > >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem > >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is > elected > >>>> by > >>>> 5 people. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. > >>> > >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea > >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one > >>>instance and by > >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small > >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the > >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit > >>>more depth. > >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a > >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for > >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > >>> > >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real > limitation > >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. > >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO > committee > >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this > >>> mishigas*. > >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some > >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is > >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this > group > >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is > >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. > >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she > >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs > >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. > >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains > >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects > >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting > is part > >>>of that. > >>> > >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just > manage > >>> teams? > >>> We would be contributing just as much. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness > >>> > >> > > > > -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From svg at milathan.com Wed Jun 11 20:07:39 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:07:39 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks Marika, very useful. It's no surprise that there is no such provision for the CSG, as that group delegates this sort of thing to its constituencies. I am however surprised that the ISP and the IPC don't have such a provision. Is there any way of asking them just to make sure, rather than just relying on their charters? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 11 June 2014 10:10, Marika Konings wrote: > Having looked at the different SG/C charters, I have found the following > provisions that deal with membership/voting in more than one SG/C: > > *RySG *(see > http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the_gTLD_Registries_Stakeholder_Group.pdf > ) > > - A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership > with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group > or constituency in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for voting > membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions > shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. > > *RrSG *(current charter does not appear to address this issue, but it is > covered in the revised charter that is currently posted for public comment, > see > http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14-en.pdf > ) > > > - Potential Conflicts with another Stakeholder Group (SG) > > If a Member serves as a registrar with no unaffiliated third-party > registrants, or is under common ownership with an entity that in the last > 12 months: has voted in another ICANN SG or any Constituency of another SG; > or holds a signed Registry contract with ICANN that includes an exemption > from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9 of the 2013 > standard registry contract) that prohibits a Registry to directly or > indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any > registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems and > related registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for > such preferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on > substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar > conditions; then their Registered or Non-Registered representatives shall > not be eligible to hold office in the RrSG for the Executive Committee, > NomCom, or GNSO, or any other future electable RrSG position. In addition, > a Voting Member cannot have a representative who is also a voting member or > represents a voting member in another SG. > > Any disagreement regarding whether an individual is eligible to hold > office shall be decided by a majority vote of the RrSG. > > > *NPOC *(see current charter at > https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter) > > - Committee Structure and Officer Requirements - 2.2 EligibilitySections > 2.2 through 2.10 provide rules and requirements for all NPOC leadership > positions elected by the membership and, as such, apply to the Chair, > Vice-Chair, Secretariat, and Chairs of the Membership, Policy, and > Communication Committees. > > To be eligible for a committee officer position, candidates must: > > 2.2.1 Have been his/her organization's representative of record, in > good standing, for a period of at least six (6) months; > > 2.2.2 Not already hold a committee leadership position; > > 2.2.3 Not be currently serving as a GNSO Council Member; and > > 2.2.4 Not be NPOC Chair if serving on the ICANN Nominating Committee, > as an officer of another ICANN constituency or as an officer of the > At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). > > *NCUC* (see current charter at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/) > > - B. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC > specifically excludes: > > 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold > government office and/or elect government officials > > 2. Commercial organizations and associations of or for the > benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) > > 3. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU > with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting > Organization > > *NCSG* (see current charter at > http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf) > > > - 2.2.1. *Ineligible organizations.* > > The membership of the NCSG specifically excludes: > > 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office > and/or elect government officials; > > 2. Commercial organizations and associations that advocate for the > benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non---profit in form); > > 3. Organizations that are represented in ICANN through another Supporting > Organization specified in the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Stakeholder Group; > > 4. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with > ICANN; > > 5. Government organizations or government departments whether local, regional > or national; and > > 6. Intergovernmental organizations whose membership primarily includes nation > states. > > *ISPCP* (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ) > > - No specific provision found > > *IPC *(see current charter at http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/) > > - No specific provision found > > *BC *(see current charter at http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm) > > - Membership criteria: 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this > excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing > for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry > operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, or otherwise related > to domain name supply, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be > aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations > for whom a minority of members may belong to or could belong to any of the > other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. > > *CSG* (see current charter at > http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf) > > - No specific provision found > > Obviously I may have missed something, so please feel free to correct or > add to this information, but in short it looks like some SG/C deal with > this issue through the membership or officer eligibility criteria while > others look more specifically at who is eligible to vote while some do not > appear to have any specific provisions in place. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: Stephane Van Gelder > Date: Tuesday 10 June 2014 23:58 > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Cc: "James M. Bladel" , Avri Doria , " > gnso-review-dt at icann.org" > > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all > constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from > being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. > > Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? > > St?phane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur > Milathan LTD > "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.Milathan.com > ---------------- > Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > > > On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > wrote: > >> >> It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been >> already. >> >> I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places >> on policies etc., that benefited them >> >> I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership >> (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start >> selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more >> closely. But voting is a different matter. >> >> Regards >> >> Michele >> >> -- >> Mr Michele Neylon >> Blacknight Solutions >> Hosting & Colocation, Domains >> http://www.blacknight.co/ >> http://blog.blacknight.com/ >> http://www.technology.ie/ >> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> >> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon >> ------------------------------- >> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >> Park,Sleaty >> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: >> owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM >> To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions >> >> >> I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to >> their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if >> they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this >> is enforced on a community-wide basis. >> >> J. >> >> >> On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: >> >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >> >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >> >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >> >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. >> > >> >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >> >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. >> > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not >> >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. >> > >> >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >> >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. >> > >> >avri >> > >> > >> >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >> >> >> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >> >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of >> >> one entity within multiple constituencies. >> >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the >> >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by >> >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one >> constituency. >> >> >> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >> >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >> >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >> >>> >> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >> >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >> >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to >> >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now >> >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - >> >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties >> >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how >> >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >> >>>that mashup... >> >>> >> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >> >>> James, re: >> >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >> >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >> >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >> >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another >> >>> in their interests and actions. >> >>> >> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >> >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >> >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >> >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >> >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >> >>> the community. >> >>> >> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >> >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >> >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >> >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. >> >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries >> >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own >> >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the >> >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that >> >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of >> >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I >> >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will >> >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >> >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >> >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >> >>> >> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get >> >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... >> >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >> >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >> >>> >> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >> >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >> >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >> >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all >> >>> of these critical questions. >> >>> >> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has >> >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the >> >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >> >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >> >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >> >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those >> >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... >> >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >> >>>methodology? >> >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >> >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can >> >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each >> >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >> >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >> >>> Would >> >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >> >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? >> Radical, yes. >> >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >> >>>absolutely... >> >>> >> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >> >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. >> >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we >> >>>like it or not. And then what? >> >>> >> >>> Kind regards, >> >>> >> >>> RA >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ron Andruff >> >>> dotSport LLC >> >>> www.lifedotsport.com >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >> >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >> >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> >>> Questions >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> >>>>> primary role? >> >>>>> >> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >> >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have >> >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely >> >>>> in electing a Board member this time. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >> >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >> >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >> >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >> >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >> >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >> >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >> >>> and gets worse all the time. >> >>> >> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >> >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >> >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not >> >>>too likely. >> >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >> >>>never been a workable formula. >> >>> >> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >> >>> their neighbors. >> >>> >> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed >> >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a >> >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. >> >>> >> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >> >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from >> >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That >> >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or >> later. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck >> >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality >> >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. >> >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore >> >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't >> >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be >> >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership >> >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. >> >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >> >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could >> >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >> >>> split. >> >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >> >>> funny. >> >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >> >>> >> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >> >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that >> directly. >> >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >> >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >> >>> >> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >> >>>> both on the NCPH side. >> >>>> >> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >> >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >> >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >> >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >> >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >> >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >> >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >> >>>> >> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my >> >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in >> >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >> >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >> >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >> >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >> >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >> >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >> >>> out what needs to be done. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >> >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >> >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >> >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >> >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >> >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >> >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >> >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, >> >>> but a critical one. >> >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >> >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >> >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >> >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus >> >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in >> >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was >> >>> far more dynamic in the past. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >> >>>> >> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >> >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >> >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >> >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >> >>>> >> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >> >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected >> >>>> by >> >>>> 5 people. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >> >>> >> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea >> >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one >> >>>instance and by >> >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >> >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the >> >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit >> >>>more depth. >> >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a >> >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for >> >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability >> >>> >> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >> >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. >> >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >> >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this >> >>> mishigas*. >> >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >> >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >> >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >> >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >> >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. >> >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she >> >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs >> >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. >> >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains >> >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects >> >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part >> >>>of that. >> >>> >> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >> >>> teams? >> >>> We would be contributing just as much. >> >>> >> >>> avri >> >>> >> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From svg at milathan.com Wed Jun 11 20:05:37 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:05:37 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: <5398122A.7000408@key-systems.net> References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> <5398122A.7000408@key-systems.net> Message-ID: Volker, I would add that the type of skewing you are suggesting has already been seen in the RrSG when it came out in support of VI... St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 11 June 2014 10:24, Volker Greimann wrote: > Hi stephane, > > even being able to chose where to vote may be problematic, actually. If > for example a vertically integrated registry with a small registrar > operation choses to vote as registrars, as their interests are already well > maintained within the RySG without their vote, that would skeqw the balance > between the groups. Similarly, a dotBrand operator opting to vote as a > registry as the IPC "does not need" another voter would extend the > influence of one stakeholder group into another. > > Best regards, > > Volker > > > Am 10.06.2014 23:58, schrieb Stephane Van Gelder: > > I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all > constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from > being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. > > Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? > > St?phane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur > Milathan LTD > "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.Milathan.com > ---------------- > Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > > > On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > wrote: > >> >> It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been >> already. >> >> I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places >> on policies etc., that benefited them >> >> I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership >> (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start >> selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more >> closely. But voting is a different matter. >> >> Regards >> >> Michele >> >> -- >> Mr Michele Neylon >> Blacknight Solutions >> Hosting & Colocation, Domains >> http://www.blacknight.co/ >> http://blog.blacknight.com/ >> http://www.technology.ie/ >> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> >> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon >> ------------------------------- >> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >> Park,Sleaty >> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: >> owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM >> To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> Questions >> >> >> I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to >> their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if >> they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this >> is enforced on a community-wide basis. >> >> J. >> >> >> On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: >> >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >> >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >> >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >> >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. >> > >> >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >> >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. >> > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not >> >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. >> > >> >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >> >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. >> > >> >avri >> > >> > >> >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >> >> >> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >> >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of >> >> one entity within multiple constituencies. >> >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the >> >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by >> >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one >> constituency. >> >> >> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >> >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 06.06.2014 23 <06.06.2014%2023>:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >> >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >> >>> >> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >> >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >> >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to >> >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now >> >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - >> >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties >> >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how >> >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >> >>>that mashup... >> >>> >> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >> >>> James, re: >> >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >> >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >> >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >> >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another >> >>> in their interests and actions. >> >>> >> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >> >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >> >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >> >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >> >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >> >>> the community. >> >>> >> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >> >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >> >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >> >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. >> >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries >> >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own >> >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the >> >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that >> >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of >> >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I >> >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will >> >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >> >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >> >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >> >>> >> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get >> >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... >> >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >> >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >> >>> >> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >> >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >> >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >> >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all >> >>> of these critical questions. >> >>> >> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has >> >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the >> >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >> >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >> >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >> >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those >> >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... >> >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >> >>>methodology? >> >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >> >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can >> >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each >> >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >> >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >> >>> Would >> >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >> >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? >> Radical, yes. >> >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >> >>>absolutely... >> >>> >> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >> >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. >> >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we >> >>>like it or not. And then what? >> >>> >> >>> Kind regards, >> >>> >> >>> RA >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ron Andruff >> >>> dotSport LLC >> >>> www.lifedotsport.com >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >> >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >> >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >> >>> Questions >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >> >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >> >>>>> primary role? >> >>>>> >> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >> >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have >> >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely >> >>>> in electing a Board member this time. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >> >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >> >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >> >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >> >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >> >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >> >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >> >>> and gets worse all the time. >> >>> >> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >> >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >> >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not >> >>>too likely. >> >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >> >>>never been a workable formula. >> >>> >> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >> >>> their neighbors. >> >>> >> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed >> >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a >> >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. >> >>> >> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >> >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from >> >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That >> >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or >> later. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck >> >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality >> >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. >> >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore >> >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't >> >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be >> >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership >> >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. >> >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >> >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could >> >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >> >>> split. >> >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >> >>> funny. >> >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >> >>> >> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >> >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that >> directly. >> >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >> >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >> >>> >> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >> >>>> both on the NCPH side. >> >>>> >> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >> >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >> >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >> >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >> >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >> >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >> >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >> >>>> >> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my >> >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in >> >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >> >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >> >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >> >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >> >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >> >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >> >>> out what needs to be done. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >> >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >> >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >> >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >> >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >> >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >> >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >> >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, >> >>> but a critical one. >> >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >> >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >> >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >> >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus >> >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in >> >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was >> >>> far more dynamic in the past. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >> >>>> >> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >> >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >> >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >> >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >> >>>> >> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >> >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected >> >>>> by >> >>>> 5 people. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >> >>> >> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea >> >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one >> >>>instance and by >> >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >> >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the >> >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit >> >>>more depth. >> >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a >> >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for >> >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability >> >>> >> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >> >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. >> >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >> >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this >> >>> mishigas*. >> >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >> >>> >> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >> >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >> >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >> >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >> >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. >> >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she >> >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs >> >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. >> >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains >> >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects >> >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part >> >>>of that. >> >>> >> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >> >>> teams? >> >>> We would be contributing just as much. >> >>> >> >>> avri >> >>> >> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. > > Mit freundlichen Gr??en, > > Volker A. Greimann > - Rechtsabteilung - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu > > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > > Best regards, > > Volker A. Greimann > - legal department - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems > > CEO: Alexander Siffrin > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu > > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Wed Jun 11 20:24:47 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:24:47 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: Stephane, Thank you for your comments. Please note that the research and information gathering that you are suggesting is precisely the type of work that the Independent Examiner will engage in as part of their review. Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:08 PM To: Marika Konings Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; James M. Bladel; Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks Marika, very useful. It's no surprise that there is no such provision for the CSG, as that group delegates this sort of thing to its constituencies. I am however surprised that the ISP and the IPC don't have such a provision. Is there any way of asking them just to make sure, rather than just relying on their charters? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 11 June 2014 10:10, Marika Konings > wrote: Having looked at the different SG/C charters, I have found the following provisions that deal with membership/voting in more than one SG/C: RySG (see http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the_gTLD_Registries_Stakeholder_Group.pdf) * A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group or constituency in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for voting membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. RrSG (current charter does not appear to address this issue, but it is covered in the revised charter that is currently posted for public comment, see http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14-en.pdf) * Potential Conflicts with another Stakeholder Group (SG) If a Member serves as a registrar with no unaffiliated third-party registrants, or is under common ownership with an entity that in the last 12 months: has voted in another ICANN SG or any Constituency of another SG; or holds a signed Registry contract with ICANN that includes an exemption from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9 of the 2013 standard registry contract) that prohibits a Registry to directly or indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems and related registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for such preferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions; then their Registered or Non-Registered representatives shall not be eligible to hold office in the RrSG for the Executive Committee, NomCom, or GNSO, or any other future electable RrSG position. In addition, a Voting Member cannot have a representative who is also a voting member or represents a voting member in another SG. Any disagreement regarding whether an individual is eligible to hold office shall be decided by a majority vote of the RrSG. NPOC (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter) ? Committee Structure and Officer Requirements - 2.2 Eligibility Sections 2.2 through 2.10 provide rules and requirements for all NPOC leadership positions elected by the membership and, as such, apply to the Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretariat, and Chairs of the Membership, Policy, and Communication Committees. To be eligible for a committee officer position, candidates must: 2.2.1 Have been his/her organization's representative of record, in good standing, for a period of at least six (6) months; 2.2.2 Not already hold a committee leadership position; 2.2.3 Not be currently serving as a GNSO Council Member; and 2.2.4 Not be NPOC Chair if serving on the ICANN Nominating Committee, as an officer of another ICANN constituency or as an officer of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). NCUC (see current charter at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/) * B. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials 2. Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) 3. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization NCSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf) * 2.2.1. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCSG specifically excludes: 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials; 2. Commercial organizations and associations that advocate for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-?-profit in form); 3. Organizations that are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization specified in the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Stakeholder Group; 4. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN; 5. Government organizations or government departments whether local, regional or national; and 6. Intergovernmental organizations whose membership primarily includes nation states. ISPCP (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ) * No specific provision found IPC (see current charter at http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/) * No specific provision found BC (see current charter at http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm) * Membership criteria: 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, or otherwise related to domain name supply, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations for whom a minority of members may belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. CSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf) * No specific provision found Obviously I may have missed something, so please feel free to correct or add to this information, but in short it looks like some SG/C deal with this issue through the membership or officer eligibility criteria while others look more specifically at who is eligible to vote while some do not appear to have any specific provisions in place. Best regards, Marika From: Stephane Van Gelder > Date: Tuesday 10 June 2014 23:58 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Cc: "James M. Bladel" >, Avri Doria >, "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > wrote: It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been already. I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places on policies etc., that benefited them I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. But voting is a different matter. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this is enforced on a community-wide basis. J. On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" > wrote: > >Hi, > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > >avri > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of >> one entity within multiple constituencies. >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. >> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >>> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >>>that mashup... >>> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >>> James, re: >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another >>> in their interests and actions. >>> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >>> the community. >>> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >>> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >>> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all >>> of these critical questions. >>> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >>>methodology? >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >>> Would >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >>>absolutely... >>> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we >>>like it or not. And then what? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> dotSport LLC >>> www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>> Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>>> primary role? >>>>> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely >>>> in electing a Board member this time. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >>> and gets worse all the time. >>> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not >>>too likely. >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >>>never been a workable formula. >>> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >>> their neighbors. >>> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. >>> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >>> >>> [Chuck >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >>> split. >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >>> funny. >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >>> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >>> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >>>> both on the NCPH side. >>>> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >>> out what needs to be done. >>> >>> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, >>> but a critical one. >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was >>> far more dynamic in the past. >>> >>>> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>>> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>>> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected >>>> by >>>> 5 people. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >>> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one >>>instance and by >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit >>>more depth. >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability >>> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this >>> mishigas*. >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part >>>of that. >>> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >>> teams? >>> We would be contributing just as much. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From svg at milathan.com Wed Jun 11 20:43:04 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:43:04 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: <6kr6bq63b8mkbyesh2uxmn44.1401843302301@email.android.com> <538F4016.4010907@acm.org> <000a01cf8016$e0afd7d0$a20f8770$@dotsportllc.com> <538FA5A5.1060308@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936AE67@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1DCD8F1C71EC47A997A6D82E95C1877A@WUKPC> <53907A4D.7000206@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936B8E4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391E7E3.4060602@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BD6A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5391F4CC.4010106@acm.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936BEB6@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <53922040.7030701@acm.org> <009901cf81d0$8eede610$acc9b230$@dotsportllc.com> <53973B3F.5010004@key-systems.net> <53974028.4030609@acm.org> Message-ID: Maybe so Larisa, but as it seems that this information is also important to help this group best formulate its recommendations for the 360 that the IE's work will be based on, perhaps it would be good for this group to have that information as well, don't you think? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 11 June 2014 22:24, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: > Stephane, > > Thank you for your comments. Please note that the research and > information gathering that you are suggesting is precisely the type of work > that the Independent Examiner will engage in as part of their review. > > > > Larisa > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van Gelder > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:08 PM > *To:* Marika Konings > *Cc:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight; James M. Bladel; Avri Doria; > gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > Thanks Marika, very useful. > > > > It's no surprise that there is no such provision for the CSG, as that > group delegates this sort of thing to its constituencies. > > > > I am however surprised that the ISP and the IPC don't have such a > provision. Is there any way of asking them just to make sure, rather than > just relying on their charters? > > > St?phane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur > Milathan LTD > > "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.Milathan.com > > ---------------- > Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > > > > On 11 June 2014 10:10, Marika Konings wrote: > > Having looked at the different SG/C charters, I have found the following > provisions that deal with membership/voting in more than one SG/C: > > > > *RySG *(see > http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the_gTLD_Registries_Stakeholder_Group.pdf > ) > > - A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership > with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group > or constituency in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for voting > membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions > shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. > > *RrSG *(current charter does not appear to address this issue, but it is > covered in the revised charter that is currently posted for public comment, > see > http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14-en.pdf > ) > > - Potential Conflicts with another Stakeholder Group (SG) > > If a Member serves as a registrar with no unaffiliated third-party > registrants, or is under common ownership with an entity that in the last > 12 months: has voted in another ICANN SG or any Constituency of another SG; > or holds a signed Registry contract with ICANN that includes an exemption > from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9 of the 2013 > standard registry contract) that prohibits a Registry to directly or > indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any > registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems and > related registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for > such preferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on > substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar > conditions; then their Registered or Non-Registered representatives shall > not be eligible to hold office in the RrSG for the Executive Committee, > NomCom, or GNSO, or any other future electable RrSG position. In addition, > a Voting Member cannot have a representative who is also a voting member or > represents a voting member in another SG. > > Any disagreement regarding whether an individual is eligible to hold > office shall be decided by a majority vote of the RrSG. > > > > *NPOC *(see current charter at > https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter) > ? Committee Structure and Officer Requirements - 2.2 EligibilitySections > 2.2 through 2.10 provide rules and requirements for all NPOC leadership > positions elected by the membership and, as such, apply to the Chair, > Vice-Chair, Secretariat, and Chairs of the Membership, Policy, and > Communication Committees. > > To be eligible for a committee officer position, candidates must: > > 2.2.1 Have been his/her organization's representative of record, in good > standing, for a period of at least six (6) months; > > 2.2.2 Not already hold a committee leadership position; > > 2.2.3 Not be currently serving as a GNSO Council Member; and > > 2.2.4 Not be NPOC Chair if serving on the ICANN Nominating Committee, as > an officer of another ICANN constituency or as an officer of the At-Large > Advisory Committee (ALAC). > > *NCUC* (see current charter at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/) > > - B. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC > specifically excludes: > > 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold > government office and/or elect government officials > > 2. Commercial organizations and associations of or for the > benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) > > 3. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU > with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting > Organization > > *NCSG* (see current charter at > http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf) > > - 2.2.1. *Ineligible organizations.* > > The membership of the NCSG specifically excludes: > > 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office > and/or elect government officials; > > 2. Commercial organizations and associations that advocate for the > benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non---profit in form); > > 3. Organizations that are represented in ICANN through another Supporting > Organization specified in the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Stakeholder Group; > > 4. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with > ICANN; > > 5. Government organizations or government departments whether local, regional > or national; and > > 6. Intergovernmental organizations whose membership primarily includes nation > states. > > *ISPCP* (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ) > > - No specific provision found > > *IPC *(see current charter at http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/) > > - No specific provision found > > *BC *(see current charter at http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm) > > - Membership criteria: 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this > excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing > for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry > operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, or otherwise related > to domain name supply, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be > aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations > for whom a minority of members may belong to or could belong to any of the > other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. > > *CSG* (see current charter at > http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf) > > - No specific provision found > > Obviously I may have missed something, so please feel free to correct or > add to this information, but in short it looks like some SG/C deal with > this issue through the membership or officer eligibility criteria while > others look more specifically at who is eligible to vote while some do not > appear to have any specific provisions in place. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > *From: *Stephane Van Gelder > > *Date: *Tuesday 10 June 2014 23:58 > *To: *Michele Neylon - Blacknight > *Cc: *"James M. Bladel" , Avri Doria , > "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" > > > *Subject: *Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > Questions > > > > I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all > constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from > being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. > > > > Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? > > > St?phane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur > Milathan LTD > > "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.Milathan.com > > ---------------- > Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com > > > > On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight > wrote: > > > It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been > already. > > I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places > on policies etc., that benefited them > > I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of > some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling > more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. > But voting is a different matter. > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072> > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM > To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions > > > I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to > their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if > they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this > is enforced on a community-wide basis. > > J. > > > On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about > >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many > >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have > >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > > > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the > >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. > > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not > >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. > > > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the > >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > > > >avri > > > > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: > >> > >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to > >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of > >> one entity within multiple constituencies. > >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the > >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by > >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one > constituency. > >> > >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational > >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Volker > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: > >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, > >>> > >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last > >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an > >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to > >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now > >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - > >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties > >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how > >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to > >>>that mashup... > >>> > >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment > >>> James, re: > >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it > >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's > >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various > >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another > >>> in their interests and actions. > >>> > >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the > >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different > >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a > >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the > >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise > >>> the community. > >>> > >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the > >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the > >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not > >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. > >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries > >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own > >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the > >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that > >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of > >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I > >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will > >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as > >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what > >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. > >>> > >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get > >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... > >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants > >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. > >>> > >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and > >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey > >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We > >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all > >>> of these critical questions. > >>> > >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has > >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the > >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I > >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via > >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this > >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those > >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... > >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical > >>>methodology? > >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the > >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can > >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each > >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates > >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? > >>> Would > >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the > >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? > Radical, yes. > >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, > >>>absolutely... > >>> > >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope > >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. > >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we > >>>like it or not. And then what? > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> RA > >>> > >>> > >>> Ron Andruff > >>> dotSport LLC > >>> www.lifedotsport.com > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 > >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment > >>> Questions > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a > >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's > >>>>> primary role? > >>>>> > >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without > >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have > >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely > >>>> in electing a Board member this time. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this > >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of > >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe > >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing > >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, > >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. > >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years > >>> and gets worse all the time. > >>> > >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the > >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the > >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not > >>>too likely. > >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has > >>>never been a workable formula. > >>> > >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of > >>> their neighbors. > >>> > >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed > >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a > >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. > >>> > >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is > >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from > >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That > >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. > >>> > >>> [Chuck > >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality > >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. > >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore > >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't > >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be > >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership > >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. > >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH > >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could > >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always > >>> split. > >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather > >>> funny. > >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. > >>> > >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO > >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that > directly. > >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly > >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. > >>> > >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in > >>>> both on the NCPH side. > >>>> > >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever > >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, > >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly > >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. > >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. > >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. > >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. > >>>> > >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my > >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in > >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] > >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering > >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this > >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. > >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time > >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find > >>> out what needs to be done. > >>> > >>> > >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the > >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is > >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask > >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say > >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am > >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. > >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key > >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, > >>> but a critical one. > >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or > >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to > >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict > >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus > >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in > >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was > >>> far more dynamic in the past. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. > >>>> > >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost > >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is > >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the > >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. > >>>> > >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem > >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected > >>>> by > >>>> 5 people. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. > >>> > >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea > >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one > >>>instance and by > >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small > >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the > >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit > >>>more depth. > >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a > >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for > >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability > >>> > >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation > >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. > >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee > >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this > >>> mishigas*. > >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. > >>> > >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some > >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is > >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group > >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is > >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. > >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she > >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs > >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. > >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains > >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects > >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part > >>>of that. > >>> > >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage > >>> teams? > >>> We would be contributing just as much. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness > >>> > >> > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 11 21:08:45 2014 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:08:45 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3A06FB0566DD46AAB39483609EE6F147@WUKPC> Good catch St?phane. This proves that we?re not as often look into our basic docs as needed. A review is definitely needed here. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:07 PM To: Marika Konings Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; James M. Bladel ; Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks Marika, very useful. It's no surprise that there is no such provision for the CSG, as that group delegates this sort of thing to its constituencies. I am however surprised that the ISP and the IPC don't have such a provision. Is there any way of asking them just to make sure, rather than just relying on their charters? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 11 June 2014 10:10, Marika Konings wrote: Having looked at the different SG/C charters, I have found the following provisions that deal with membership/voting in more than one SG/C: RySG (see http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the_gTLD_Registries_Stakeholder_Group.pdf) a.. A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group or constituency in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for voting membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. RrSG (current charter does not appear to address this issue, but it is covered in the revised charter that is currently posted for public comment, see http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14-en.pdf) a.. Potential Conflicts with another Stakeholder Group (SG) If a Member serves as a registrar with no unaffiliated third-party registrants, or is under common ownership with an entity that in the last 12 months: has voted in another ICANN SG or any Constituency of another SG; or holds a signed Registry contract with ICANN that includes an exemption from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9 of the 2013 standard registry contract) that prohibits a Registry to directly or indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems and related registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for such preferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions; then their Registered or Non-Registered representatives shall not be eligible to hold office in the RrSG for the Executive Committee, NomCom, or GNSO, or any other future electable RrSG position. In addition, a Voting Member cannot have a representative who is also a voting member or represents a voting member in another SG. Any disagreement regarding whether an individual is eligible to hold office shall be decided by a majority vote of the RrSG. NPOC (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter) a.. Committee Structure and Officer Requirements - 2.2 Eligibility Sections 2.2 through 2.10 provide rules and requirements for all NPOC leadership positions elected by the membership and, as such, apply to the Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretariat, and Chairs of the Membership, Policy, and Communication Committees. To be eligible for a committee officer position, candidates must: 2.2.1 Have been his/her organization?s representative of record, in good standing, for a period of at least six (6) months; 2.2.2 Not already hold a committee leadership position; 2.2.3 Not be currently serving as a GNSO Council Member; and 2.2.4 Not be NPOC Chair if serving on the ICANN Nominating Committee, as an officer of another ICANN constituency or as an officer of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). NCUC (see current charter at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/) a.. B. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials 2. Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) 3. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization NCSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf) a.. 2.2.1. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCSG specifically excludes: 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials; 2. Commercial organizations and associations that advocate for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-?-profit in form); 3. Organizations that are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization specified in the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Stakeholder Group; 4. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN; 5. Government organizations or government departments whether local, regional or national; and 6. Intergovernmental organizations whose membership primarily includes nation states. ISPCP (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ) a.. No specific provision found IPC (see current charter at http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/) a.. No specific provision found BC (see current charter at http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm) a.. Membership criteria: 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, or otherwise related to domain name supply, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations for whom a minority of members may belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. CSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf) a.. No specific provision found Obviously I may have missed something, so please feel free to correct or add to this information, but in short it looks like some SG/C deal with this issue through the membership or officer eligibility criteria while others look more specifically at who is eligible to vote while some do not appear to have any specific provisions in place. Best regards, Marika From: Stephane Van Gelder Date: Tuesday 10 June 2014 23:58 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: "James M. Bladel" , Avri Doria , "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been already. I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places on policies etc., that benefited them I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. But voting is a different matter. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this is enforced on a community-wide basis. J. On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > >Hi, > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > >avri > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of >> one entity within multiple constituencies. >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. >> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >>> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >>>that mashup... >>> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >>> James, re: >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another >>> in their interests and actions. >>> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >>> the community. >>> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >>> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >>> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all >>> of these critical questions. >>> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >>>methodology? >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >>> Would >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >>>absolutely... >>> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we >>>like it or not. And then what? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> dotSport LLC >>> www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>> Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>>> primary role? >>>>> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely >>>> in electing a Board member this time. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >>> and gets worse all the time. >>> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not >>>too likely. >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >>>never been a workable formula. >>> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >>> their neighbors. >>> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. >>> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >>> >>> [Chuck >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >>> split. >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >>> funny. >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >>> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >>> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >>>> both on the NCPH side. >>>> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >>> out what needs to be done. >>> >>> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, >>> but a critical one. >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was >>> far more dynamic in the past. >>> >>>> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>>> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>>> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected >>>> by >>>> 5 people. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >>> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one >>>instance and by >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit >>>more depth. >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability >>> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this >>> mishigas*. >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part >>>of that. >>> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >>> teams? >>> We would be contributing just as much. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 11 21:25:45 2014 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:25:45 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6403F5B9D0F54FB48D0483D32F4A09FE@WUKPC> Coming back to the structural issue several times raised on this thread: all ?structures? deemed to play an important role within the GNSO context ? SGs, constituencies etc. ? are obliged to rely on some basic documents like charters. I?m wondering whether charters for the houses could help them to improve since they are a recognized entity in the decision making process. Just a question to be reviewed. Wolf-Ulrich From: Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:43 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: Marika Konings ; Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; James M. Bladel ; Avri Doria ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Maybe so Larisa, but as it seems that this information is also important to help this group best formulate its recommendations for the 360 that the IE's work will be based on, perhaps it would be good for this group to have that information as well, don't you think? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 11 June 2014 22:24, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: Stephane, Thank you for your comments. Please note that the research and information gathering that you are suggesting is precisely the type of work that the Independent Examiner will engage in as part of their review. Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:08 PM To: Marika Konings Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; James M. Bladel; Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions Thanks Marika, very useful. It's no surprise that there is no such provision for the CSG, as that group delegates this sort of thing to its constituencies. I am however surprised that the ISP and the IPC don't have such a provision. Is there any way of asking them just to make sure, rather than just relying on their charters? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 11 June 2014 10:10, Marika Konings wrote: Having looked at the different SG/C charters, I have found the following provisions that deal with membership/voting in more than one SG/C: RySG (see http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/Charter_of_the_gTLD_Registries_Stakeholder_Group.pdf) a.. A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group or constituency in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for voting membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. RrSG (current charter does not appear to address this issue, but it is covered in the revised charter that is currently posted for public comment, see http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-rrsg-charter-redline-30may14-en.pdf) a.. Potential Conflicts with another Stakeholder Group (SG) If a Member serves as a registrar with no unaffiliated third-party registrants, or is under common ownership with an entity that in the last 12 months: has voted in another ICANN SG or any Constituency of another SG; or holds a signed Registry contract with ICANN that includes an exemption from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9 of the 2013 standard registry contract) that prohibits a Registry to directly or indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems and related registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for such preferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions; then their Registered or Non-Registered representatives shall not be eligible to hold office in the RrSG for the Executive Committee, NomCom, or GNSO, or any other future electable RrSG position. In addition, a Voting Member cannot have a representative who is also a voting member or represents a voting member in another SG. Any disagreement regarding whether an individual is eligible to hold office shall be decided by a majority vote of the RrSG. NPOC (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Charter) ? Committee Structure and Officer Requirements - 2.2 Eligibility Sections 2.2 through 2.10 provide rules and requirements for all NPOC leadership positions elected by the membership and, as such, apply to the Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretariat, and Chairs of the Membership, Policy, and Communication Committees. To be eligible for a committee officer position, candidates must: 2.2.1 Have been his/her organization?s representative of record, in good standing, for a period of at least six (6) months; 2.2.2 Not already hold a committee leadership position; 2.2.3 Not be currently serving as a GNSO Council Member; and 2.2.4 Not be NPOC Chair if serving on the ICANN Nominating Committee, as an officer of another ICANN constituency or as an officer of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). NCUC (see current charter at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/) a.. B. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCUC specifically excludes: 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials 2. Commercial organizations and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-profit in form) 3. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN, or are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization NCSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf) a.. 2.2.1. Ineligible organizations. The membership of the NCSG specifically excludes: 1. Political organizations whose primary purpose is to hold government office and/or elect government officials; 2. Commercial organizations and associations that advocate for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-?-profit in form); 3. Organizations that are represented in ICANN through another Supporting Organization specified in the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Stakeholder Group; 4. Organizations that provide services under contract or MoU with ICANN; 5. Government organizations or government departments whether local, regional or national; and 6. Intergovernmental organizations whose membership primarily includes nation states. ISPCP (see current charter at https://community.icann.org/x/EgWpAQ) a.. No specific provision found IPC (see current charter at http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws/) a.. No specific provision found BC (see current charter at http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm) a.. Membership criteria: 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, or otherwise related to domain name supply, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations for whom a minority of members may belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. CSG (see current charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/csg-charter-01nov10-en.pdf) a.. No specific provision found Obviously I may have missed something, so please feel free to correct or add to this information, but in short it looks like some SG/C deal with this issue through the membership or officer eligibility criteria while others look more specifically at who is eligible to vote while some do not appear to have any specific provisions in place. Best regards, Marika From: Stephane Van Gelder Date: Tuesday 10 June 2014 23:58 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: "James M. Bladel" , Avri Doria , "gnso-review-dt at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I don't believe this is an issue as I think all SGs in the CPH and all constituencies in the NCPH have rules that prohibit a voting member from being a voting member of another group in the GNSO. Can staff perhaps enlighten us on this? St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 10 June 2014 19:48, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: It's something that probably needs to be addressed if it hasn't been already. I'd be quite disturbed if a single company was voting in multiple places on policies etc., that benefited them I don't have an issue with companies / organisations having membership (of some kind) in multiple groups. If, for example, we were to start selling more transit etc., then we'd probably want to follow the ISPs more closely. But voting is a different matter. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:44 PM To: Avri Doria; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions I know some structures (like the RrSG) have either adopted changes to their bylaws, or are working to, that would prohibit members from voting if they are voting members in other SGs. But it is not clear to me how this is enforced on a community-wide basis. J. On 6/10/14, 12:28 , "Avri Doria" wrote: > >Hi, > >I thought there was already a rule somewhere in the SIC documents about >being able to vote in only one SG. Of course a company with many >divisions could find a way to be a member of several. Or could have >staff members join multiple Constituencies or SGs as individuals. > >But how would one prevent that? Of course one way to start is the >requirement that all SGs list all of their members on a public web site. > I think wee already have that requirement, somewhere, but I am not >sure it is followed by all with equal fervor. > >Perhaps we should also have a question about the degree to which the >various SGs and Cs follow SIC rules. > >avri > > >On 10-Jun-14 19:07, Volker Greimann wrote: >> >> One further issue the DT may want to look at is if it is necessary to >> devise policies that avoid "double dipping" i.e. representation of >> one entity within multiple constituencies. >> Without such policy one could argue that there is a risk for the >> entire structure of ICANN being hollowed out or dominated by >> specialized interest groups that happen to fit more than one constituency. >> >> This is not necessarily a structural, but rather an organizational >> issue, i.e. of defining which constituency best represents an entity. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> Am 06.06.2014 23:44, schrieb Ron Andruff: >>> Dear Chuck, James and all, >>> >>> As I catch up on this string reading through the posts since my last >>>one I am seeing a lot of parsing of words rather than an >>>understanding of what I believe Avri and I are trying to bring to >>>the fore. What I am saying is that the structure we have now >>>appears to be serving only two groups - Registries and Registrars - >>>within all of ICANN. Those of us who were not contracted parties >>>were jammed together at an 11th hour meeting similar to how >>>Yugoslavia was created post WWII, and we all know what happened to >>>that mashup... >>> >>> If there is commonality (and here I take issue with your comment >>> James, re: >>> the BC and IPC overlap, because that is NOT the case in our view) it >>> is commonality around ICANN issues such as public interest, user's >>> interests, as examples. Otherwise the memberships in the various >>> bodies that make up the NPCH could not be further from one another >>> in their interests and actions. >>> >>> So we are saying -- as members of this WP -- the discord within the >>> NCPH is palpable. It is not dislike of each other, rather different >>> views as constituencies. Thus, we should give the house structure a >>> serious review to see if there are other ways to structure the >>> organization so that it better serves the institution and likewise >>> the community. >>> >>> While Chuck has pointed to some results that have occurred over the >>>years, the few positive examples pale in comparison to all of the >>>other issues, big and small, that have failed more often than not >>>locked in stalemates, e.g. >>> Vertical Integration. One result of VI is new registries >>>handpicking even trademarked names and putting them into their own >>>registrar to sell for $1000's as premium names... Was that the >>>intended result the Board thought would happen when they took that >>>over from the GNSO WG or was that just an outcome of a failure of >>>the GNSO to fulfill its mandate...? I don't know the answer, but I >>>do believe that things we have yet to see as a result of VI will >>>haunt ICANN for decades to come. Some may see this example as >>>conflating issues, but it is not so much that as an example of what >>>happens when the GNSO doesn't work as it could. >>> >>> In my view, we should stop parsing words with explanations and get >>> on with a full - 360 degree - review of the entire GNSO... >>> stakeholder groups, houses, NCAs, voting, how to manage new entrants >>> (constituencies, communities, brands, geos) etc. >>> >>> We need new ideas to build a structure that meets today's and >>> tomorrow's (as far as we can anticipate them) needs. The survey >>> respondents will give us the data to construct the 'new GNSO'. We >>> just have to figure out how to put a survey together that asks all >>> of these critical questions. >>> >>> A fresh idea for selecting Board members (as that discussion has >>>also come up on this thread) is needed if we want to populate the >>>ICANN Board with the most highly-qualified representatives. When I >>>consider how much vetting prospective Board members go through via >>>the Nom Com (as a result of my participation in 2013 and again this >>>year) I am amazed and appalled at how very little vetting those >>>Board members that come through the SG's get... >>> Why would the community choose such an uneven and illogical >>>methodology? >>> Given an opportunity to utilize a better process, I am sure the >>>community would seize on it for all the good reasons one can >>>imagine. So what quality of Board would we get if each >>>constituency/stakeholder group were to put forward three candidates >>>for the Nom Com to vet and select one from? >>> Would >>> that raise the bar? Would such a vetting process remove from the >>>Board those whose first interest may not be the good of ICANN? Radical, yes. >>> Workable, maybe. Raise the quality of the ICANN Board of Directors, >>>absolutely... >>> >>> Everyone on this WP should be thinking outside of the box if we hope >>>to generate a GNSO review/improvement from the bottom up. >>>Otherwise, we will see change coming from the top down, whether we >>>like it or not. And then what? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> dotSport LLC >>> www.lifedotsport.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 16:11 >>> Cc: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment >>> Questions >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06-Jun-14 19:53, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> >>>>> Can you give me an example where the House structure has caused a >>>>> problem with regard to policy development, which is the GNSO's >>>>> primary role? >>>>> >>>> The inability of the NCPH to perform any of it functions without >>>> months of garbage processing. It just does not work. We have >>>> great trouble electing a vice-chair and we have failed completely >>>> in electing a Board member this time. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I don't think this >>>> has impacted policy development but it is still a very good point of >>>> an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would like to think (maybe >>>> naively) that this should be able to be solved within the existing >>>> structure. If the two houses cannot resolve it among themselves, >>>> then maybe it should be discussed by the full Council. >>> It can't be. If anything it has gotten worse over the three years >>> and gets worse all the time. >>> >>> And I certainly can't see discussing it in council. What is the >>>difference between discussing it in the house and in council. the >>>other house is going to give us advice on how to get along. Not >>>too likely. >>> In all my years of studying counseling and group dynamics that has >>>never been a workable formula. >>> >>> Kind of like a one neighbor trying to fix the marital problems of >>> their neighbors. >>> >>> And before you suggest we go to a counselor, we did. And indeed >>>when it gets too tough the Ombudsman can help us iron our a >>>compromise, but that is not way to live. >>> >>>> Additionally, and I can see why the CPH would not mind, it is >>>> obvious that the differences inside the NCPH will keep use from >>>> ever being able to elect a Chair from our side of the GNSO. That >>>> is a kind of dysfunction that rots most organizations sooner or later. >>> >>> [Chuck >>>> Gomes] I think this is kind of an unfair statement. The reality >>>> is that the NCPH did not put forward a candidate in the last round. >>>> If you think it is impossible, maybe the Council should explore >>>> ways to rotate the position among the two houses. I haven't >>>> discussed this with others in the CPH but I personally would be >>>> fine with that as long as the candidates have good leadership >>>> skills and are able to commit the time. >>> Yeah maybe. But no. In fact, names withheld, I have even have CPH >>> people tell me this that they realized there was no way we could >>> ever put up a candidate that could win because our vote would always >>> split. >>> Though the idea of us putting up a candidate we agreed on is rather >>> funny. >>> Pathetic humor, but funny. >>> >>>>> Is the adversarial problem you observed in the Council or the GNSO >>>>> in general? I am not on the Council so I cannot speak to that directly. >>> On council we can actually sometime agree on some issues. We mostly >>>all know how to behave professionally in council most of the time. >>> >>>> The Council is not sperate form the GNSO. The dysfunction is in >>>> both on the NCPH side. >>>> >>>> Additionally the house structure makes it impossible to ever >>>> consider adding new SGs, and with the growth of the new gTLD space, >>>> that looks like a possible limitation. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Adding SGs would certainly >>>> be complicated but I don't think it should be impossible. >>> That would imbalance the house which would be complicated. >>> Whereas without house, we could just add some more council members. >>>> But I am not suggesting we add SGs at this point in time. >>>> >>>> What I am arguing for is gathering information. Maybe my >>>> perception is mine alone. The fact that people aren't intersted in >>>> gathering information strikes me as sort of problematic, though. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] >>>> As I think I have said several times, I am not opposed to gathering >>>> the information but just question whether we should do it in this >>>> exercise, i.e., the timing. >>> I do not understand the timing issue. This is the time. next time >>> is in 3 years. There is one survey, one chance for the SIC to find >>> out what needs to be done. >>> >>> >>>> If everything is as wonderful as you think it is, asking the >>>> questions won't hurt anything, we will find out that everything is >>>> wonderful and I am wrong. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] If the group wants to ask >>>> questions about structure, I won't fight. And I didn't say >>>> everything is wonderful. Everything is far from wonderful but I am >>>> not convinced that is largely a factor of structure. >>> There we have a difference of opinion. I think structure is a key >>> component to things working out well or purely, not the only one, >>> but a critical one. >>> You either accentuate the differences with sets of oppositions, or >>> you put together a structure that allows many different alliances to >>> form, with these alliance changing over time. Because of the strict >>> diremption in the voting structure, house versus house, SG versus >>> SG, alliances are much more difficult. When I compare the days in >>> the council my last time, with this time, the alliance making was >>> far more dynamic in the past. >>> >>>> >>>> As I say, at this point I am advocate gathering info. >>>> >>>> But yes, I beleive we could eliminate the houses and keep almost >>>> everything else the same, rather simply, all we would need to do is >>>> figure out how to elect vice chairs and Board members. But for the >>>> NCPH it would remove a limitation. >>>> >>>> As for electing the Board, I consider it a real democracy problem >>>> that one person is elected by 8 people, while the other is elected >>>> by >>>> 5 people. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] Please translate this for me. >>> >>> (: that is far too few people for a voting population. The idea >>>that one board seat is elected by a group of 7 voters in one >>>instance and by >>> 13 in another is a problem in accountability. 21 voters is small >>>enough. I would actually like to see us take a page out of the >>>AT-Large book and add the SG chairs to the voting group for a bit >>>more depth. >>> But I know that is a structural change too far. The point is a >>>large more diverse representative voting populations makes for >>>better democracy, aka it is better for accountability >>> >>>> Finally I think having a homeless voteless NCA is a real limitation >>>> on the community's influence on the GNSO. >>> BTW, I think this was intentional on the part of the GNSO committee >>> (which i was one but dissented from) that came up with this >>> mishigas*. >>> They wanted to decrease the influence of the NCAs. >>> >>> [Chuck Gomes] I need some >>>> help understanding this. BTW, the homeless, voteless NCA is >>>> providing some excellent service for the GNSO in leading this group >>>> and representing the GNSO with SIC on GNSO Review. To me that is >>>> much more valuable than any vote would be. >>> Yes I spoke of Jen's great service in our last meeting. And she >>>could do just as well if she had a vote. Many people do good jobs >>>in the council without needing to give up their vote to do so. >>>Jonathan provides great service as a neutral chair, yet he retains >>>his vote. The two issues are not related. The community selects >>>three people to contribute to the decisions making. Voting is part >>>of that. >>> >>> Would it make sense for us all to give up our votes and just manage >>> teams? >>> We would be contributing just as much. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> * yiddish word for a special kind of craziness >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Wed Jun 11 22:37:39 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:37:39 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Jun 11 23:25:41 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:25:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Jun 12 14:08:27 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:08:27 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] No call today? Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Is there no GNSO Review Working Party Call today? Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Thu Jun 12 14:14:10 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:14:10 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Correct, it was decided on last call the next meeting will be held face to face in London. Thank you, Terri From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:08 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] No call today? Is there no GNSO Review Working Party Call today? Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Thu Jun 12 14:17:46 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:17:46 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: And there I was feeling mildly guilty for not making the call .. Terri - when is the meeting in London? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:14 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? Correct, it was decided on last call the next meeting will be held face to face in London. Thank you, Terri From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:08 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] No call today? Is there no GNSO Review Working Party Call today? Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Thu Jun 12 14:20:02 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:20:02 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Hello All, Jen had cancelled the weekly calls for this and next week. The next meeting will be in London - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review Date: Sun, 22 June 2014 - 17:00 to 18:30 BST Room: Thames Suite Safe travels and see you in London. Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:08 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] No call today? Is there no GNSO Review Working Party Call today? Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Jun 12 14:25:43 2014 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:25:43 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <17C7A0B26F2846348A47475144F42427@WUKPC> maybe the ?structure? was too shaky...? Wolf-Ulrich From: Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? Hello All, Jen had cancelled the weekly calls for this and next week. The next meeting will be in London - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review Date: Sun, 22 June 2014 - 17:00 to 18:30 BST Room: Thames Suite Safe travels and see you in London. Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:08 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] No call today? Is there no GNSO Review Working Party Call today? Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Thu Jun 12 15:13:02 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:13:02 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Larisa Ok - thanks I won't be able to make that meeting, as I have other commitments between the EWG and the RrSG Please note my apologies Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? Hello All, Jen had cancelled the weekly calls for this and next week. The next meeting will be in London - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review Date: Sun, 22 June 2014 - 17:00 to 18:30 BST Room: Thames Suite Safe travels and see you in London. Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:08 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] No call today? Is there no GNSO Review Working Party Call today? Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JStandiford at web.com Thu Jun 12 15:15:45 2014 From: JStandiford at web.com (Jennifer Standiford) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:15:45 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: I also will not be able to make the meeting. Michele and I have the same commitment at this time. My apologies, Jennifer From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:13 AM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? Larisa Ok - thanks I won't be able to make that meeting, as I have other commitments between the EWG and the RrSG Please note my apologies Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? Hello All, Jen had cancelled the weekly calls for this and next week. The next meeting will be in London - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review Date: Sun, 22 June 2014 - 17:00 to 18:30 BST Room: Thames Suite Safe travels and see you in London. Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:08 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] No call today? Is there no GNSO Review Working Party Call today? Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From svg at milathan.com Thu Jun 12 15:27:37 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:27:37 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Same, NomCom commitments. Best, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 12 June 2014 17:15, Jennifer Standiford wrote: > I also will not be able to make the meeting. Michele and I have the same > commitment at this time. > > > > My apologies, > > Jennifer > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Michele Neylon - Blacknight > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:13 AM > *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? > > > > Larisa > > > > Ok - thanks > > > > I won't be able to make that meeting, as I have other commitments between > the EWG and the RrSG > > > > Please note my apologies > > > > Regards > > > > Michele > > > > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] *On > Behalf Of *Larisa B. Gurnick > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:20 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? > > > > Hello All, > > > > Jen had cancelled the weekly calls for this and next week. The next > meeting will be in London - > http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review > > *Date: Sun, 22 June 2014 - 17:00 to 18:30 BST* > > *Room: Thames Suite* > > > > Safe travels and see you in London. > > > > Larisa > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] *On > Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:08 AM > *To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] No call today? > > > > Is there no GNSO Review Working Party Call today? > > > > Chuck > "This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of > the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain > information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and > exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as > attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of > this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message > immediately." > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu Jun 12 16:45:45 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:45:45 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FA0B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <054701cf865d$c3799780$4a6cc680$@dotsportllc.com> Also I am committed to Nom Com at that day/time, but should we finish earlier than anticipated on Sunday, I will come along and join the meeting. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:28 To: Jennifer Standiford Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Larisa B. Gurnick; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? Same, NomCom commitments. Best, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 12 June 2014 17:15, Jennifer Standiford > wrote: I also will not be able to make the meeting. Michele and I have the same commitment at this time. My apologies, Jennifer From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:13 AM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? Larisa Ok - thanks I won't be able to make that meeting, as I have other commitments between the EWG and the RrSG Please note my apologies Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: No call today? Hello All, Jen had cancelled the weekly calls for this and next week. The next meeting will be in London - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review Date: Sun, 22 June 2014 - 17:00 to 18:30 BST Room: Thames Suite Safe travels and see you in London. Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:08 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] No call today? Is there no GNSO Review Working Party Call today? Chuck ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu Jun 12 17:20:06 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:20:06 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Chuck, Dear colleagues, I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others saw it. Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be two issues: 1. The 'House Compromise' The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had some intrinsic rationale to it. And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier). The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Jun 12 18:24:53 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:24:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering different options. Please see my other responses below Ron. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, Dear colleagues, I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others saw it. Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be two issues: 1. The 'House Compromise' The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place before the current procedures were in place. The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had some intrinsic rationale to it. [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six seats each. Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the Council, it looked like this: - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. - There were also three NCAs. - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the users and the suppliers. - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack thereof. 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier). [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to deal with that. The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu Jun 12 18:48:05 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:48:05 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Chuck, In answer to your question: [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one additional vote is needed from the other side. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering different options. Please see my other responses below Ron. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, Dear colleagues, I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others saw it. Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be two issues: 1. The 'House Compromise' The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place before the current procedures were in place. The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had some intrinsic rationale to it. [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six seats each. Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the Council, it looked like this: - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. - There were also three NCAs. - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the users and the suppliers. - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack thereof. 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier). [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to deal with that. The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [ mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Jun 12 19:05:33 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:05:33 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> No Ron. The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not the constituencies. That was intentional. How the SGs handle their constituencies is up to them as long as their charters are approved by the Board and as long as each SG has the same voting power. Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, In answer to your question: [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one additional vote is needed from the other side. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering different options. Please see my other responses below Ron. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, Dear colleagues, I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others saw it. Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be two issues: 1. The 'House Compromise' The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place before the current procedures were in place. The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had some intrinsic rationale to it. [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six seats each. Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the Council, it looked like this: - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. - There were also three NCAs. - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the users and the suppliers. - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack thereof. 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier). [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to deal with that. The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu Jun 12 20:44:47 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:44:47 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Chuck, As a result of the bicameral structure, in the NCPH, the voting structure for all House-related elections is cumbersome, i.e. the winner must have 8 votes in any combination - e.g., BC-2; IPC-2; ISP-2; NPOC-1 (or NCUC-1); NCA-1 Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:06 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review No Ron. The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not the constituencies. That was intentional. How the SGs handle their constituencies is up to them as long as their charters are approved by the Board and as long as each SG has the same voting power. Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, In answer to your question: [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one additional vote is needed from the other side. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering different options. Please see my other responses below Ron. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, Dear colleagues, I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others saw it. Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be two issues: 1. The 'House Compromise' The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place before the current procedures were in place. The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had some intrinsic rationale to it. [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six seats each. Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the Council, it looked like this: - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. - There were also three NCAs. - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the users and the suppliers. - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack thereof. 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier). [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to deal with that. The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [ mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 12 21:41:30 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:41:30 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <539A1E8A.2040907@acm.org> On 12-Jun-14 20:24, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry > and registrar representative votes counted double. and they still do, though it is not structural as opposed to count by twos. that did not change it was just turned into a euphemism. A very complicated one with voting charts and tables. avri From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Jun 12 23:17:40 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:17:40 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <539A1E8A.2040907@acm.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FF65@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> The voting isn't complicated to me. The thresholds are. Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 05:41 PM Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; 'BRG' Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review On 12-Jun-14 20:24, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry > and registrar representative votes counted double. and they still do, though it is not structural as opposed to count by twos. that did not change it was just turned into a euphemism. A very complicated one with voting charts and tables. avri From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jun 13 05:50:25 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:50:25 +0900 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: Hi Ron, The example of board seat election is a particular case. the process agreed between the 2 parts of NCPH is the winner needs to get 60% of votes within NCPH which means 8 votes among 13. so a candidate has to get endorsement for both sides and that is the current challenge. for PDP, the situation is different depending to the threshold. btw for NCSG, we elect gnso councillors at SG level, we don't have wired seats like in CSG. back to the initial issue, I think that review of houses model and adding it to the survey is important . if people are or not happy with the current structure, we can only be sure with the collected data and feedback. Rafik 2014-06-13 5:44 GMT+09:00 Ron Andruff : > Dear Chuck, > > > > As a result of the bicameral structure, in the NCPH, the voting structure > for all House-related elections is cumbersome, i.e. the winner must have 8 > votes in any combination ? e.g., BC-2; IPC-2; ISP-2; NPOC-1 (or NCUC-1); > NCA-1 > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > *dotSport LLC* > > *www.lifedotsport.com * > > > > *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:06 > *To:* Ron Andruff > *Cc:* 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > No Ron. The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not > the constituencies. That was intentional. How the SGs handle their > constituencies is up to them as long as their charters are approved by the > Board and as long as each SG has the same voting power. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com ] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > Dear Chuck, > > > > In answer to your question: *[Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response > to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted > Party House election of a Board seat. * > > > > We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one > additional vote is needed from the other side. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are > different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it > was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was a > compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering > different options. > > > > Please see my other responses below Ron. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM > > To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Dear Chuck, > > Dear colleagues, > > > > I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral > recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the > anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there > was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others > saw it. > > > > Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be > two issues: > > > > 1. The 'House Compromise' > > > > The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced > was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal > compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. > > [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO > structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had > no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were > required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that > suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus > policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very > unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that > community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. > > > > These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the > Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. > > [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place > before the current procedures were in place. > > > > The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this > disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. > This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and > Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of > the rest of the > > Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it > had > > some intrinsic rationale to it. > > [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in > place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of > seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced the > number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become > almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was > not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of the existing > constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how the number six > was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a representative point > of view for registries and registrars to have six seats each. > > > > Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the > Council, it looked like this: > > - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, > ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. > > - There were also three NCAs. > > - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and > registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the > users and the suppliers. > > - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. > > > > > > > > And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. > > [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an > argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack > thereof. > > > > 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group > /Constituency > > > > The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we > were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, > for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for > example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council > (4-tier). > > [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and > registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication > over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the current > structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more > complexity but once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting > the votes in each house and comparing them to the thresholds. Glen seems > to handle this easily each month. Even if the voting is more complex, that > is not very sound reason to change it. > > > > The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of > the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in > previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that > meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the > > 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). > > [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the > NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board > seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, > one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in > cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an illustration of the > careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike your characterization > of it. The group anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in > a house would disagree and provided a way to deal with that. > > > > The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas > often covering the same issues as BC agendas. > > [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an issue > whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses > or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. > > > > I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing > are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO > - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs > review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I said above, I am not > convinced. I can accept the fact that many people may not like it but no > one has convinced me that there is a functional problem that cannot be > solved in the current structure. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 > > To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral > house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding > questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not > inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific > examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy > development and have only received broad generalizations. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > > On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM > > To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of > review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we > consider adding these elements to the 360 review. > > > > To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] > > On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 > > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: BRG > > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, > commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him > here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also > have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover > structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended > scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. > > > > I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in > person in London. > > > > With kindest regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > > FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM > MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL > PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM > > 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 > > 513.746.2801 > > Follow Me: > > Follow My Blog > > Domain Names Rewired > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org > ] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM > > To: Jen Wolfe > > Subject: RE: GNSO review > > > > Jen, > > please forward this to the list for me. > > I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the > list owner. > > Philip > > --------------------------------------- > > > > I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. > > I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) > on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses > structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for > > this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. > > > > In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope > the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and > representativeness of): > > - constituencies > > - stakeholder groups > > - houses > > - Council > > - Non com appointees > > - liaisons > > > > as well as seeking to resolve: > > - how best to involve the public interest , and > > - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, > geos, communities. > > > > Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. > > Philip > > > > Philip Sheppard > > Director General > > Brand Registry Group > > www.brandregistrygroup.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 13 07:33:01 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:33:01 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <539AA92D.9050007@acm.org> Hi, That is an artifact of the byLaws' 60% requirement. In terms of this, be careful what you wish for: Had it been a majority requirement, as it seems it would be in a democratic enterprise, I would be in my third year on the Board having won the first round last time 7:6. Or I would have been elected this time have gained 7:6 in the third round. I am sure that is not a result you, or the rest of the BC, would have been happy with. That is one reason for the supermajority, to make sure that by capturing one vote, sometime the NCA vote though not necessarily, one could be elcted. The ostensible reason is that even if someone has the full support of the SG, they need to at least convince someone on the other side that they might be acceptable as a representative. This was, in my opinion another of the artifacts of the trend during the last 'improvements' to prevent NCA from being the decision makers. While it has worked against me twice now, I must say that given the structure, I support the 60% threshold. avri On 12-Jun-14 22:44, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Chuck, > > > > As a result of the bicameral structure, in the NCPH, the voting > structure for all House-related elections is cumbersome, i.e. the winner > must have 8 votes in any combination ? e.g., BC-2; IPC-2; ISP-2; NPOC-1 > (or NCUC-1); NCA-1 > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > *dotSport LLC* > > *www.lifedotsport.com * > > > > *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:06 > *To:* Ron Andruff > *Cc:* 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > No Ron. The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not > the constituencies. That was intentional. How the SGs handle their > constituencies is up to them as long as their charters are approved by > the Board and as long as each SG has the same voting power. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:*Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > ; 'BRG' > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > Dear Chuck, > > > > In answer to your question: /[Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response > to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted > Party House election of a Board seat. / > > > > We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one > additional vote is needed from the other side. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > ; 'BRG' > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are > different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it > was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was > a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering > different options. > > > > Please see my other responses below Ron. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM > > To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Dear Chuck, > > Dear colleagues, > > > > I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral > recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall > the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view > that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is > not how others saw it. > > > > Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to > be two issues: > > > > 1. The 'House Compromise' > > > > The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced > was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an > internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number > of groups. > > [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO > structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially > had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers > were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that > suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus > policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very > unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that > community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. > > > > These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the > Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. > > [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in > place before the current procedures were in place. > > > > The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this > disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. > This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries > and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to > all of the rest of the > > Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had > > some intrinsic rationale to it. > > [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in > place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number > of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced > the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have > become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that > that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of > the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how > the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a > representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six > seats each. > > > > Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the > Council, it looked like this: > > - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: > BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. > > - There were also three NCAs. > > - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and > registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between > the users and the suppliers. > > - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. > > > > > > > > And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. > > [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an > argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack > thereof. > > > > 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency > > > > The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we > were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, > for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for > example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council > (4-tier). > > [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and > registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication > over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the > current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds > added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple > matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the > thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the > voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. > > > > The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of > the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in > previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative > that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as > all of the > > 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). > > [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using > the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a > Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to > call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably > neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an > illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike > your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be > times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to > deal with that. > > > > The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH > agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. > > [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an > issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there > are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. > > > > I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are > discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some > parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and > therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I > said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people > may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional > problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 > > To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral > house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for > adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts > not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific > examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy > development and have only received broad generalizations. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM > > To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of > review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we > consider adding these elements to the 360 review. > > > > To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 > > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: BRG > > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry > Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have > copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his > comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their > intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include > it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as > received. > > > > I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in > person in London. > > > > With kindest regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > > FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY > FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY > CORP INTL 2013 IAM > > 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 > > 513.746.2801 > > Follow Me: > > Follow My Blog > > Domain Names Rewired > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM > > To: Jen Wolfe > > Subject: RE: GNSO review > > > > Jen, > > please forward this to the list for me. > > I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the > list owner. > > Philip > > --------------------------------------- > > > > I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. > > I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and > others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging > the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective > rationale for > > this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. > > > > In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would > hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for > (and representativeness of): > > - constituencies > > - stakeholder groups > > - houses > > - Council > > - Non com appointees > > - liaisons > > > > as well as seeking to resolve: > > - how best to involve the public interest , and > > - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, > geos, communities. > > > > Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. > > Philip > > > > Philip Sheppard > > Director General > > Brand Registry Group > > www.brandregistrygroup.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Fri Jun 13 09:32:11 2014 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:32:11 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <539AA92D.9050007@acm.org> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> <539AA92D.9050007@acm.org> Message-ID: <2690A9929BA34186963C9F10AB292886@WUKPC> In every case of tight results one has to be the decision maker. The rationale for the voting scheme can be discussed from a winner's point of view as well as from the other side or even more general. I don't see here a motivation to prevent the NCA being the tipping of the scales rather than a motivation to impose the need for compromises between the SGs re important house decisions. That's how I understand "compromising 60%" from the bylaws. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 9:33 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi, That is an artifact of the byLaws' 60% requirement. In terms of this, be careful what you wish for: Had it been a majority requirement, as it seems it would be in a democratic enterprise, I would be in my third year on the Board having won the first round last time 7:6. Or I would have been elected this time have gained 7:6 in the third round. I am sure that is not a result you, or the rest of the BC, would have been happy with. That is one reason for the supermajority, to make sure that by capturing one vote, sometime the NCA vote though not necessarily, one could be elcted. The ostensible reason is that even if someone has the full support of the SG, they need to at least convince someone on the other side that they might be acceptable as a representative. This was, in my opinion another of the artifacts of the trend during the last 'improvements' to prevent NCA from being the decision makers. While it has worked against me twice now, I must say that given the structure, I support the 60% threshold. avri On 12-Jun-14 22:44, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Chuck, > > > > As a result of the bicameral structure, in the NCPH, the voting > structure for all House-related elections is cumbersome, i.e. the winner > must have 8 votes in any combination ? e.g., BC-2; IPC-2; ISP-2; NPOC-1 > (or NCUC-1); NCA-1 > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > *dotSport LLC* > > *www.lifedotsport.com * > > > > *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:06 > *To:* Ron Andruff > *Cc:* 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > No Ron. The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not > the constituencies. That was intentional. How the SGs handle their > constituencies is up to them as long as their charters are approved by > the Board and as long as each SG has the same voting power. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:*Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* Gomes, Chuck > *Cc:* 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > ; 'BRG' > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > Dear Chuck, > > > > In answer to your question: /[Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response > to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted > Party House election of a Board seat. / > > > > We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one > additional vote is needed from the other side. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > ; 'BRG' > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are > different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it > was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was > a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering > different options. > > > > Please see my other responses below Ron. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM > > To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Dear Chuck, > > Dear colleagues, > > > > I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral > recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall > the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view > that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is > not how others saw it. > > > > Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to > be two issues: > > > > 1. The 'House Compromise' > > > > The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced > was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an > internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number > of groups. > > [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO > structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially > had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers > were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that > suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus > policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very > unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that > community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. > > > > These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the > Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. > > [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in > place before the current procedures were in place. > > > > The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this > disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. > This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries > and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to > all of the rest of the > > Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it > had > > some intrinsic rationale to it. > > [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in > place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number > of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced > the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have > become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that > that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of > the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how > the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a > representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six > seats each. > > > > Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the > Council, it looked like this: > > - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: > BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. > > - There were also three NCAs. > > - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and > registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between > the users and the suppliers. > > - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. > > > > > > > > And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working > Group. > > [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an > argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack > thereof. > > > > 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group > /Constituency > > > > The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we > were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, > for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for > example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council > (4-tier). > > [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and > registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication > over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the > current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds > added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple > matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the > thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the > voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. > > > > The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of > the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in > previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative > that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as > all of the > > 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). > > [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using > the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a > Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to > call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably > neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an > illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike > your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be > times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to > deal with that. > > > > The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH > agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. > > [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an > issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there > are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. > > > > I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are > discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some > parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and > therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I > said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people > may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional > problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 > > To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral > house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for > adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts > not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific > examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy > development and have only received broad generalizations. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM > > To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of > review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we > consider adding these elements to the 360 review. > > > > To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 > > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: BRG > > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry > Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have > copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his > comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their > intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include > it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as > received. > > > > I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in > person in London. > > > > With kindest regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > > FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY > FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY > CORP INTL 2013 IAM > > 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 > > 513.746.2801 > > Follow Me: > > Follow My Blog > > Domain Names Rewired > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM > > To: Jen Wolfe > > Subject: RE: GNSO review > > > > Jen, > > please forward this to the list for me. > > I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the > list owner. > > Philip > > --------------------------------------- > > > > I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. > > I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and > others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging > the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective > rationale for > > this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. > > > > In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would > hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for > (and representativeness of): > > - constituencies > > - stakeholder groups > > - houses > > - Council > > - Non com appointees > > - liaisons > > > > as well as seeking to resolve: > > - how best to involve the public interest , and > > - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, > geos, communities. > > > > Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. > > Philip > > > > Philip Sheppard > > Director General > > Brand Registry Group > > www.brandregistrygroup.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > From davecake at gmail.com Fri Jun 13 15:31:40 2014 From: davecake at gmail.com (David Cake) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:31:40 +0800 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: And I think Chuck, you said something about the NCAs being useful to break the deadlock? No, the NCA is mostly irrelevant - 1 NCA vote can't break the deadlonck, you need two votes above the other house - and as CSG councillors are bound to vote the way their constituency directs, and no CSG constituency has only 1 vote. So the circumstances in which an NCA vote will be relevant is limited. The issue here isn't whether the house was a last minute compromise or a careful and measured one, or whether the house structure makes a substantial different to GNSO policy processes. Or even whether the house structure is particularly problematic, though clearly many people feel it does, and those positions elected on a house basis have a history of being problematic. If we are reviewing the GNSO, we should be reviewing structural changes made since the last review to see if they are working, and the only reason to exclude them from processes such as the 360 review would be if we are going to deal with them via a separate process. Cheers David On 13 Jun 2014, at 1:50 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ron, > > The example of board seat election is a particular case. the process agreed between the 2 parts of NCPH is the winner needs to get 60% of votes within NCPH which means 8 votes among 13. so a candidate has to get endorsement for both sides and that is the current challenge. for PDP, the situation is different depending to the threshold. > > btw for NCSG, we elect gnso councillors at SG level, we don't have wired seats like in CSG. > > back to the initial issue, I think that review of houses model and adding it to the survey is important . if people are or not happy with the current structure, we can only be sure with the collected data and feedback. > > Rafik > > 2014-06-13 5:44 GMT+09:00 Ron Andruff : > Dear Chuck, > > > > As a result of the bicameral structure, in the NCPH, the voting structure for all House-related elections is cumbersome, i.e. the winner must have 8 votes in any combination ? e.g., BC-2; IPC-2; ISP-2; NPOC-1 (or NCUC-1); NCA-1 > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:06 > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > No Ron. The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not the constituencies. That was intentional. How the SGs handle their constituencies is up to them as long as their charters are approved by the Board and as long as each SG has the same voting power. > > > > Chuck > > > > From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > Dear Chuck, > > > > In answer to your question: [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. > > > > We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one additional vote is needed from the other side. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering different options. > > > > Please see my other responses below Ron. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM > > To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Dear Chuck, > > Dear colleagues, > > > > I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others saw it. > > > > Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be two issues: > > > > 1. The 'House Compromise' > > > > The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. > > [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. > > > > These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. > > [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place before the current procedures were in place. > > > > The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the > > Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had > > some intrinsic rationale to it. > > [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six seats each. > > > > Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the Council, it looked like this: > > - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. > > - There were also three NCAs. > > - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the users and the suppliers. > > - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. > > > > > > > > And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. > > [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack thereof. > > > > 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency > > > > The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier). > > [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. > > > > The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the > > 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). > > [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to deal with that. > > > > The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. > > [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. > > > > I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 > > To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Ron Andruff > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM > > To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: 'BRG' > > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. > > > > To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > Ron Andruff > > dotSport LLC > > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 > > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Cc: BRG > > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. > > > > I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. > > > > With kindest regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > > FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM > > 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 > > 513.746.2801 > > Follow Me: > > Follow My Blog > > Domain Names Rewired > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM > > To: Jen Wolfe > > Subject: RE: GNSO review > > > > Jen, > > please forward this to the list for me. > > I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. > > Philip > > --------------------------------------- > > > > I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. > > I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for > > this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. > > > > In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): > > - constituencies > > - stakeholder groups > > - houses > > - Council > > - Non com appointees > > - liaisons > > > > as well as seeking to resolve: > > - how best to involve the public interest , and > > - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. > > > > Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. > > Philip > > > > Philip Sheppard > > Director General > > Brand Registry Group > > www.brandregistrygroup.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Fri Jun 13 15:35:40 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:35:40 +0800 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <2690A9929BA34186963C9F10AB292886@WUKPC> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> <539AA92D.9050007@acm.org> <2690A9929BA34186963C9F10AB292886@WUKPC> Message-ID: <5F3D6E9A-28FA-4D33-A98C-EF12096BEFBD@difference.com.au> On 13 Jun 2014, at 5:32 pm, WUKnoben wrote: In every case of tight results one has to be the decision maker. Well, for NCPH board elections, two have to be the decision makers. The rationale for the voting scheme can be discussed from a winner's point of view as well as from the other side or even more general. I don't see here a motivation to prevent the NCA being the tipping of the scales rather than a motivation to impose the need for compromises between the SGs re important house decisions. That's how I understand "compromising 60%" from the bylaws. I agree - the intention of bylaws is to encourage a compromise candidate that is acceptable to at least part of both houses. In practice, the NCPH does not seem to be terribly good at compromise, and imposing a by-law does not seem to have changed that much. Regards David Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 9:33 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi, That is an artifact of the byLaws' 60% requirement. In terms of this, be careful what you wish for: Had it been a majority requirement, as it seems it would be in a democratic enterprise, I would be in my third year on the Board having won the first round last time 7:6. Or I would have been elected this time have gained 7:6 in the third round. I am sure that is not a result you, or the rest of the BC, would have been happy with. That is one reason for the supermajority, to make sure that by capturing one vote, sometime the NCA vote though not necessarily, one could be elcted. The ostensible reason is that even if someone has the full support of the SG, they need to at least convince someone on the other side that they might be acceptable as a representative. This was, in my opinion another of the artifacts of the trend during the last 'improvements' to prevent NCA from being the decision makers. While it has worked against me twice now, I must say that given the structure, I support the 60% threshold. avri On 12-Jun-14 22:44, Ron Andruff wrote: Dear Chuck, As a result of the bicameral structure, in the NCPH, the voting structure for all House-related elections is cumbersome, i.e. the winner must have 8 votes in any combination ? e.g., BC-2; IPC-2; ISP-2; NPOC-1 (or NCUC-1); NCA-1 Kind regards, RA *Ron Andruff* *dotSport LLC* *www.lifedotsport.com * *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:06 *To:* Ron Andruff *Cc:* 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review No Ron. The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not the constituencies. That was intentional. How the SGs handle their constituencies is up to them as long as their charters are approved by the Board and as long as each SG has the same voting power. Chuck *From:*Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; 'BRG' *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, In answer to your question: /[Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. / We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one additional vote is needed from the other side. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering different options. Please see my other responses below Ron. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, Dear colleagues, I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others saw it. Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be two issues: 1. The 'House Compromise' The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place before the current procedures were in place. The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had some intrinsic rationale to it. [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six seats each. Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the Council, it looked like this: - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. - There were also three NCAs. - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the users and the suppliers. - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack thereof. 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier). [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to deal with that. The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Jun 13 15:48:46 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:48:46 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4937083F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Good point David. This appears to be a voting threshold problem more than a structure problem. Maybe that should be revisited until the structure issues can be reviewed because the latter will likely take a considerable amount of time. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 11:32 AM To: rafik.dammak at gmail.com Cc: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; BRG Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review And I think Chuck, you said something about the NCAs being useful to break the deadlock? No, the NCA is mostly irrelevant - 1 NCA vote can't break the deadlonck, you need two votes above the other house - and as CSG councillors are bound to vote the way their constituency directs, and no CSG constituency has only 1 vote. So the circumstances in which an NCA vote will be relevant is limited. The issue here isn't whether the house was a last minute compromise or a careful and measured one, or whether the house structure makes a substantial different to GNSO policy processes. Or even whether the house structure is particularly problematic, though clearly many people feel it does, and those positions elected on a house basis have a history of being problematic. If we are reviewing the GNSO, we should be reviewing structural changes made since the last review to see if they are working, and the only reason to exclude them from processes such as the 360 review would be if we are going to deal with them via a separate process. Cheers David On 13 Jun 2014, at 1:50 pm, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Ron, The example of board seat election is a particular case. the process agreed between the 2 parts of NCPH is the winner needs to get 60% of votes within NCPH which means 8 votes among 13. so a candidate has to get endorsement for both sides and that is the current challenge. for PDP, the situation is different depending to the threshold. btw for NCSG, we elect gnso councillors at SG level, we don't have wired seats like in CSG. back to the initial issue, I think that review of houses model and adding it to the survey is important . if people are or not happy with the current structure, we can only be sure with the collected data and feedback. Rafik 2014-06-13 5:44 GMT+09:00 Ron Andruff >: Dear Chuck, As a result of the bicameral structure, in the NCPH, the voting structure for all House-related elections is cumbersome, i.e. the winner must have 8 votes in any combination - e.g., BC-2; IPC-2; ISP-2; NPOC-1 (or NCUC-1); NCA-1 Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:06 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review No Ron. The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not the constituencies. That was intentional. How the SGs handle their constituencies is up to them as long as their charters are approved by the Board and as long as each SG has the same voting power. Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, In answer to your question: [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one additional vote is needed from the other side. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering different options. Please see my other responses below Ron. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, Dear colleagues, I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others saw it. Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be two issues: 1. The 'House Compromise' The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place before the current procedures were in place. The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had some intrinsic rationale to it. [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six seats each. Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the Council, it looked like this: - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. - There were also three NCAs. - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the users and the suppliers. - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack thereof. 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier). [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to deal with that. The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Fri Jun 13 18:20:31 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:20:31 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4937083F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <792F80EE4BC24EFCB733AF9BC9D4FEAA@ZaparazziL11> <807077F26ECF48ED97EC3FF79CCA2CED@ZaparazziL11> <40ce993c35c64b69a6a90e949982e87f@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <048401cf85c5$c2a860e0$47f922a0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936F44A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <055b01cf8662$90b769d0$b2263d70$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FD71@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <058801cf866e$dc413820$94c3a860$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4936FE5E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <05be01cf867f$280182f0$780488d0$@dotsportllc.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4937083F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <071901cf8734$2b185da0$814918e0$@dotsportllc.com> Both David's and Rafik's comments flesh out the issue at hand. While we are talking about NCAs, does it make sense that the Nom Com has to give 2 of the 3 NCAs full voting rights, while giving the third NCA no voting rights? Makes for a difficult situation any way you cut it. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 11:49 To: David Cake; rafik.dammak at gmail.com Cc: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; BRG Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Good point David. This appears to be a voting threshold problem more than a structure problem. Maybe that should be revisited until the structure issues can be reviewed because the latter will likely take a considerable amount of time. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 11:32 AM To: rafik.dammak at gmail.com Cc: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; BRG Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review And I think Chuck, you said something about the NCAs being useful to break the deadlock? No, the NCA is mostly irrelevant - 1 NCA vote can't break the deadlonck, you need two votes above the other house - and as CSG councillors are bound to vote the way their constituency directs, and no CSG constituency has only 1 vote. So the circumstances in which an NCA vote will be relevant is limited. The issue here isn't whether the house was a last minute compromise or a careful and measured one, or whether the house structure makes a substantial different to GNSO policy processes. Or even whether the house structure is particularly problematic, though clearly many people feel it does, and those positions elected on a house basis have a history of being problematic. If we are reviewing the GNSO, we should be reviewing structural changes made since the last review to see if they are working, and the only reason to exclude them from processes such as the 360 review would be if we are going to deal with them via a separate process. Cheers David On 13 Jun 2014, at 1:50 pm, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Ron, The example of board seat election is a particular case. the process agreed between the 2 parts of NCPH is the winner needs to get 60% of votes within NCPH which means 8 votes among 13. so a candidate has to get endorsement for both sides and that is the current challenge. for PDP, the situation is different depending to the threshold. btw for NCSG, we elect gnso councillors at SG level, we don't have wired seats like in CSG. back to the initial issue, I think that review of houses model and adding it to the survey is important . if people are or not happy with the current structure, we can only be sure with the collected data and feedback. Rafik 2014-06-13 5:44 GMT+09:00 Ron Andruff >: Dear Chuck, As a result of the bicameral structure, in the NCPH, the voting structure for all House-related elections is cumbersome, i.e. the winner must have 8 votes in any combination - e.g., BC-2; IPC-2; ISP-2; NPOC-1 (or NCUC-1); NCA-1 Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com ] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 15:06 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review No Ron. The structure was designed for the two SGs to be balanced, not the constituencies. That was intentional. How the SGs handle their constituencies is up to them as long as their charters are approved by the Board and as long as each SG has the same voting power. Chuck From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, In answer to your question: [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. We now have an NPOC, which means irrespective of the NCA, at least one additional vote is needed from the other side. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 14:25 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org ; 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I was a part of it Ron. There are always compromises when there are different points of view and they usually happen toward the end. But it was not last minute because there was no deadline that I recall. It was a compromise that was reached by those on the group after considering different options. Please see my other responses below Ron. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:20 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear Chuck, Dear colleagues, I was not a member of the Working Group that made the bicameral recommendation, but I was part of the community at that time and recall the anguish that it caused then and continues to. Despite your view that there was no last minute compromise solution put forward, that is not how others saw it. Having discussed it with those who were part of the WG, there appear to be two issues: 1. The 'House Compromise' The belief that the interests of users and suppliers should be balanced was not predicated on an external objective reason, rather on an internal compromise. In 1999 the Names Council self-formed into a number of groups. [Chuck Gomes] Here are the objective reasons: Under the original DNSO structure, users outnumbered suppliers 5 to 2 so suppliers essentially had no ability to influence policy decisions; at the same time suppliers were required by contract to implement consensus policy.; the fact that suppliers signed agreements committing themselves to implement consensus policies without knowing what those policies were in advance was very unique in the business world and it happened with the understanding that community consensus including registries and registrars would be reached. These groups became the Constituencies of the GNSO and in 2008 the Constituencies were charged to agree on GNSO reform, but they disagreed. [Chuck Gomes] The balance between users and suppliers was already in place before the current procedures were in place. The 'Houses' concept was a compromise proposed to overcome this disagreement by severing the link between GNSO Council seats and votes. This was/is the key issue as it overcame the problem for the Registries and Registrars in that, together, they only had six seats in relation to all of the rest of the Council. This compromise was adopted out of expediency; not because it had some intrinsic rationale to it. [Chuck Gomes] Like I already said, the balance of voting was already in place and had been for several years so that did not change. The number of seats was the new issue, not the number of votes. If we had balanced the number of seats on the Council across SGs, the Councilor would have become almost a third larger than it is now, and many of us thought that that was not desirable. At the same time it was thought that each of the existing constituencies should have at least two seats; that is how the number six was arrived at. And it didn't seem necessary from a representative point of view for registries and registrars to have six seats each. Some history is probably helpful. Before the current structure of the Council, it looked like this: - Each of six constituencies had three representatives on the Council: BC, ISCPC, IPC, NCUC, RrC, RyC.. - There were also three NCAs. - All councilors had one vote each except for the registries and registrars who had 2 votes each, thereby creating the balance between the users and the suppliers. - This structure was implemented in the Stewart Lynn reform. And it came at the 11th hour - not from the beginning of the Working Group. [Chuck Gomes] Like most compromises do; but that shouldn't be used as an argument to denigrate it. It should be evaluated on its merits or lack thereof. 2) Unnecessary complexity of Council /House /Stakeholder Group /Constituency The House structure has made voting unnecessarily complex. Pre 2008, we were just Constituencies within Council (a 2-tier structure). Post 2008, for some groups, Council changed from a 2-tier to a 4-tier. Today, for example, the BC is a Constituency in the CSG in the NCPH in Council (4-tier). [Chuck Gomes] As I explained in the history lesson above, registry and registrar representative votes counted double. That was a complication over what it was originally but it was simple arithmetic. In the current structure it was complicated a little further; the thresholds added more complexity but once those are understood it is a simple matter of counting the votes in each house and comparing them to the thresholds. Glen seems to handle this easily each month. Even if the voting is more complex, that is not very sound reason to change it. The result of this structure creates unnecessary complexity: meetings of the CSG and of the House. And the voting system is complex. As noted in previous posts, the NCPH is struggling to elect a Board representative that meets the needs and desires of both sides of the House as well as all of the 5 Constituencies in the House (IPC, ISP, BC / NPOC, NCUC). [Chuck Gomes] I have yet to hear a response to my question about using the NCA in the voting for the Non-Contracted Party House election of a Board seat. As part of that "last minute compromise", as you like to call it, one NCA was assigned to each house to provide a presumably neutral party in cases where the two SGs were deadlocked. This is an illustration of the careful thought that was put into the effort, unlike your characterization of it. The group anticipated that there would be times when the two SGs in a house would disagree and provided a way to deal with that. The House structure has created duplication: CSG agendas and NCPH agendas often covering the same issues as BC agendas. [Chuck Gomes] That's true of the CPH as well. But that would be an issue whenever collaboration of different groups occurs whether there are houses or not. And I think we want as much collaboration as possible. I hope that we can agree to dismiss the notion that what we are discussing are "mischaracterizations" and recognize that - for some parts of the GNSO - the current model does not work as hoped and therefore needs review.[Chuck Gomes] As you might guess from what I said above, I am not convinced. I can accept the fact that many people may not like it but no one has convinced me that there is a functional problem that cannot be solved in the current structure. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 19:26 To: Ron Andruff; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review I am really bothered by the ongoing mischaracterization of the bicameral house structure as an 11th hour compromise. It's fine to argue for adding questions on structure but please base your arguments on facts not inaccurate characterizations. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples illustrating the failure of the house structure in policy development and have only received broad generalizations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: 'BRG' Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Dear colleagues, Thanks for sending this mail along, Jen. I support Philip's list of review items. Just want to weigh in on this with the request that we consider adding these elements to the 360 review. To quote Philip: " Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. " Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:38 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: BRG Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO review Hi everyone, I am forwarding an email from Philip Sheppard of the Brand Registry Group, commenting on the transcript of our most recent meeting. I have copied him here so that you may include him in any replies to his comments. I do also have a request out to the SIC to clarify if their intent is to cover structural issues separately or if we should include it in our recommended scope. This will be forwarded out as soon as received. I look forward to continuing our discussion on list and to meeting in person in London. With kindest regards, Jennifer JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -----Original Message----- From: BRG [ mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:23 AM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: RE: GNSO review Jen, please forward this to the list for me. I have also send a subscribe request but that has been forwarded to the list owner. Philip --------------------------------------- I just read the transcript of the 5 June GNSO review group call. I was especially interested in the comments (from Ron Andruff and others) on ensuring the survey asks broad questions such as challenging the Houses structure. Ron rightly pointed out there was no objective rationale for this - it was an eleventh hour negotiated compromise. In general, speaking on behalf of new stakeholders to ICANN, we would hope the GNSO review survey would allow opinion on the rationale for (and representativeness of): - constituencies - stakeholder groups - houses - Council - Non com appointees - liaisons as well as seeking to resolve: - how best to involve the public interest , and - how to embrace ICANN's new registry stakeholder groups such as brand, geos, communities. Without this breadth the review will be inadequate. Philip Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Fri Jun 13 20:42:41 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:42:41 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] SIC Response to Request for Clarification re: GNSO Review Message-ID: Jen and members of the GNSO Review Working Party, Attached please find the response from the Structural Improvements Committee to your questions. Thank you, Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SIC Response to Request for Clarification from GNSO Review Working Party.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 68021 bytes Desc: SIC Response to Request for Clarification from GNSO Review Working Party.pdf URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Sun Jun 15 14:48:28 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:48:28 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Community Outreach and Engagement for the GNSO Review Message-ID: Hi All, Attached is a Draft Plan for Community Outreach and Engagement - please review and be prepared to discuss at the next meeting in London on 22 June. Also, please note that the Frequently Asked Questions and Answers are now available as an informational brochure and hard copies will be distributed in London. Please share the attached brochure with your communities and encourage distribution. This brochure and translations into 5 additional languages, are available on the Community Wiki. Best wishes, Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Community Outreach and Engagement Plan-GNSO Review - DRAFT 15 June.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 212315 bytes Desc: Community Outreach and Engagement Plan-GNSO Review - DRAFT 15 June.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review FAQs.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1275859 bytes Desc: GNSO Review FAQs.pdf URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Mon Jun 16 19:18:27 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:18:27 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] SIC Response to Request for Clarification re: GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <087f01cf8997$c37d9cd0$4a78d670$@dotsportllc.com> Thanks for this Larisa. It appears to answer the questions we've been considering over this last period. Now we all need to agree on what goes in and what is left out, at this stage. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 16:43 To: Jen Wolfe (jwolfe at wolfedomain.com); gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: stimprov-comm at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] SIC Response to Request for Clarification re: GNSO Review Jen and members of the GNSO Review Working Party, Attached please find the response from the Structural Improvements Committee to your questions. Thank you, Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Thu Jun 19 22:42:45 2014 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:42:45 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Message-ID: The objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. The GNSO Review Working Party was created to serve as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. In addition to continuing its discussions on these topics, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to provide an update on the status of its activities as well as solicit community input. - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2208 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Thu Jun 19 23:59:12 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:59:12 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I may have missed this so apologize in advance if I did, but July 1st caught me by surprise. Is this new or are we behind on a target date? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com? -------- Original message -------- From: Charla Shambley Date: 06/19/2014 18:42 (GMT-05:00) To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party The objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. The GNSO Review Working Party was created to serve as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. In addition to continuing its discussions on these topics, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to provide an update on the status of its activities as well as solicit community input. - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Jun 20 00:47:16 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:47:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0410ff362axkv291goange3w.1403225145258@email.android.com> I think we are behind Ron Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S? 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Ron Andruff Date:06/19/2014 8:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: charla.shambley at icann.org, gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Dear Colleagues, I may have missed this so apologize in advance if I did, but July 1st caught me by surprise. Is this new or are we behind on a target date? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Charla Shambley Date: 06/19/2014 18:42 (GMT-05:00) To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party The objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. The GNSO Review Working Party was created to serve as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. In addition to continuing its discussions on these topics, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to provide an update on the status of its activities as well as solicit community input. - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From svg at milathan.com Fri Jun 20 10:48:57 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:48:57 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <0410ff362axkv291goange3w.1403225145258@email.android.com> References: <0410ff362axkv291goange3w.1403225145258@email.android.com> Message-ID: ;) St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 20 June 2014 02:47, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > I think we are behind Ron > > Chuck > > > Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S? 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ron Andruff > Date:06/19/2014 8:01 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: charla.shambley at icann.org, gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party > > Dear Colleagues, > > I may have missed this so apologize in advance if I did, but July 1st > caught me by surprise. Is this new or are we behind on a target date? > > Kind regards, > > RA > > > Ron Andruff > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Charla Shambley > Date: 06/19/2014 18:42 (GMT-05:00) > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party > > > The objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational > effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO > Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). > The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly > scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the > independent examiner. The GNSO Review Working Party was created to serve as > a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to > provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate > interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft > findings and recommendations. In addition to continuing its discussions on > these topics, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to provide an > update on the status of its activities as well as solicit community input. > - *http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review* > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Fri Jun 20 12:45:08 2014 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:45:08 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <0410ff362axkv291goange3w.1403225145258@email.android.com> References: <0410ff362axkv291goange3w.1403225145258@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hi Chuck, Ron and everyone, I hope you had safe travels to London! I don't think we are really behind in the process. At this stage, our role is to provide feedback and recommendations on the nature and scope of the questions, which have done and are continuing to do. The SIC and staff are managing the selection of the independent examiner and I believe they are on track with the intended time frame, but we will get an update this weekend. When we meet on Sunday, we can review our working timetable for the next 3 - 6 months, which will include testing the survey and providing final feedback on the survey itself, outreach to engage community participation and, ultimately, analysis of the data gathered. I look forward to seeing you all this weekend! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:47 PM To: Ron Andruff; charla.shambley at icann.org; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party I think we are behind Ron Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r) 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Ron Andruff Date:06/19/2014 8:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: charla.shambley at icann.org, gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Dear Colleagues, I may have missed this so apologize in advance if I did, but July 1st caught me by surprise. Is this new or are we behind on a target date? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Charla Shambley > Date: 06/19/2014 18:42 (GMT-05:00) To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party The objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. The GNSO Review Working Party was created to serve as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. In addition to continuing its discussions on these topics, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to provide an update on the status of its activities as well as solicit community input. - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From svg at milathan.com Fri Jun 20 14:04:52 2014 From: svg at milathan.com (Stephane Van Gelder) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:04:52 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: <0410ff362axkv291goange3w.1403225145258@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hi Jen, Just a reminder that I will not be able to make the F2F on Sunday because of NomCom duties. Best, St?phane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 20 June 2014 14:45, Jen Wolfe wrote: > Hi Chuck, Ron and everyone, > > > > I hope you had safe travels to London! I don't think we are really behind > in the process. At this stage, our role is to provide feedback and > recommendations on the nature and scope of the questions, which have done > and are continuing to do. The SIC and staff are managing the selection of > the independent examiner and I believe they are on track with the intended > time frame, but we will get an update this weekend. When we meet on > Sunday, we can review our working timetable for the next 3 - 6 months, > which will include testing the survey and providing final feedback on the > survey itself, outreach to engage community participation and, ultimately, > analysis of the data gathered. > > > > I look forward to seeing you all this weekend! > > > > Jen > > > > > > > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm > > managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual > property law firm, *named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013* > > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013* > > *513.746.2801* > > *Follow Me:* *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* *[image: > Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > > *Follow My Blog* > > *Domain Names Rewired* > > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:47 PM > *To:* Ron Andruff; charla.shambley at icann.org; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party > > > > I think we are behind Ron > > > > Chuck > > > > > > Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(R) 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ron Andruff > Date:06/19/2014 8:01 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: charla.shambley at icann.org, gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > I may have missed this so apologize in advance if I did, but July 1st > caught me by surprise. Is this new or are we behind on a target date? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > RA > > > > > > Ron Andruff > www.lifedotsport.com > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Charla Shambley > Date: 06/19/2014 18:42 (GMT-05:00) > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party > > The objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational > effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO > Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). > The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly > scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the > independent examiner. The GNSO Review Working Party was created to serve as > a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to > provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate > interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft > findings and recommendations. In addition to continuing its discussions on > these topics, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to provide an > update on the status of its activities as well as solicit community input. > - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Fri Jun 20 16:35:09 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:35:09 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: <0410ff362axkv291goange3w.1403225145258@email.android.com> Message-ID: <005101cf8ca5$9d724d40$d856e7c0$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Jen, Thank you for the kind wishes and the more detailed information. I look forward to seeing you, Chuck and others from the Working Party tomorrow (Saturday) to discuss our on-going work. Like Stephane, I am committed to Nom Com duties this week so will unfortunately not be able to attend the meeting on Sunday. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 08:45 To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; charla.shambley at icann.org; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Hi Chuck, Ron and everyone, I hope you had safe travels to London! I don't think we are really behind in the process. At this stage, our role is to provide feedback and recommendations on the nature and scope of the questions, which have done and are continuing to do. The SIC and staff are managing the selection of the independent examiner and I believe they are on track with the intended time frame, but we will get an update this weekend. When we meet on Sunday, we can review our working timetable for the next 3 - 6 months, which will include testing the survey and providing final feedback on the survey itself, outreach to engage community participation and, ultimately, analysis of the data gathered. I look forward to seeing you all this weekend! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:47 PM To: Ron Andruff; charla.shambley at icann.org ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party I think we are behind Ron Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY SR 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Ron Andruff Date:06/19/2014 8:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: charla.shambley at icann.org , gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Dear Colleagues, I may have missed this so apologize in advance if I did, but July 1st caught me by surprise. Is this new or are we behind on a target date? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Charla Shambley > Date: 06/19/2014 18:42 (GMT-05:00) To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party The objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. The GNSO Review Working Party was created to serve as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. In addition to continuing its discussions on these topics, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to provide an update on the status of its activities as well as solicit community input. - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Jun 20 20:32:14 2014 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:32:14 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: <0410ff362axkv291goange3w.1403225145258@email.android.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4938413B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Me as well Jen. Chuck From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 8:45 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; charla.shambley at icann.org; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Hi Chuck, Ron and everyone, I hope you had safe travels to London! I don't think we are really behind in the process. At this stage, our role is to provide feedback and recommendations on the nature and scope of the questions, which have done and are continuing to do. The SIC and staff are managing the selection of the independent examiner and I believe they are on track with the intended time frame, but we will get an update this weekend. When we meet on Sunday, we can review our working timetable for the next 3 - 6 months, which will include testing the survey and providing final feedback on the survey itself, outreach to engage community participation and, ultimately, analysis of the data gathered. I look forward to seeing you all this weekend! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:47 PM To: Ron Andruff; charla.shambley at icann.org; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party I think we are behind Ron Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r) 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Ron Andruff Date:06/19/2014 8:01 PM (GMT-05:00) To: charla.shambley at icann.org, gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Dear Colleagues, I may have missed this so apologize in advance if I did, but July 1st caught me by surprise. Is this new or are we behind on a target date? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Charla Shambley > Date: 06/19/2014 18:42 (GMT-05:00) To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party The objective of the GNSO Review is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. The GNSO Review Working Party was created to serve as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. In addition to continuing its discussions on these topics, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to provide an update on the status of its activities as well as solicit community input. - http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-review -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Sun Jun 22 12:10:07 2014 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:10:07 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] 360 Assessment Draft Mock Up Message-ID: Dear All, The latest version of the 360 Assessment Mock Up has been posted on the wiki and is also attached here for your convenience. This is still a working draft intended to gather additional feedback on the following elements: * Introductory language to be included in the communications accompanying the survey invitation * Questions - these questions will be divided into two surveys: general survey and in-depth survey Next steps for the 360 Assessment are as follows. We propose to discuss the timing of these activities at today's meeting and refine the schedule after the Independent Examiner begins the review. 1. Additional discussion and feedback on the substance and wording of introductory language and questions 2. Input from the Independent Examiner 3. Development of a Test 360 Assessment to evaluate functionality and ease of use of the online survey tool 4. Feedback from Working Party on the online survey 5. Launch of survey Thank you and I look forward to seeing you at today's meeting. Larisa Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick at icann.org 310 383-8995 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Draft Mock Up 22Jun14.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 48154 bytes Desc: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Draft Mock Up 22Jun14.docx URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Mon Jun 30 17:19:40 2014 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:19:40 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder Message-ID: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Hi Everyone, I hope you had safe travels continuing on from London or safely home. I know everyone is likely taking some time off this week, but this is just a reminder, we had discussed holding our next phone meeting on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m. eastern time, picking up where our standing time left off. I am dropping in a link below to the wiki where you will find all updates regarding our work. Our goal in the 10th, is to gather feedback from all of you to finalize the questions and we can then mirror our calendar to that of the review process and schedule calls for the next few months as needed ( we had discussed every other week). I look forward to talking with you all on the 10th and wish you safe journeys home! If you have any problems accessing the documents, please let me know. Thanks! Jen https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+360+Assessment+Workspace jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From michele at blacknight.com Mon Jun 30 18:16:26 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Review Reminder In-Reply-To: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Jennifer I *should* be around on that date - I'm definitely around this week Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 6:20 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder Hi Everyone, I hope you had safe travels continuing on from London or safely home. I know everyone is likely taking some time off this week, but this is just a reminder, we had discussed holding our next phone meeting on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m. eastern time, picking up where our standing time left off. I am dropping in a link below to the wiki where you will find all updates regarding our work. Our goal in the 10th, is to gather feedback from all of you to finalize the questions and we can then mirror our calendar to that of the review process and schedule calls for the next few months as needed ( we had discussed every other week). I look forward to talking with you all on the 10th and wish you safe journeys home! If you have any problems accessing the documents, please let me know. Thanks! Jen https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+360+Assessment+Workspace jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mon Jun 30 19:36:45 2014 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:36:45 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder In-Reply-To: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I booked the call in my agenda and will be available. Eventually I could be a few minutes late as I have another call (T&T Contact PDP WG) ending normally just at the same time. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 Op 30-jun.-2014, om 19:19 heeft Jen Wolfe het volgende geschreven: > Hi Everyone, > > I hope you had safe travels continuing on from London or safely home. I know everyone is likely taking some time off this week, but this is just a reminder, we had discussed holding our next phone meeting on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m. eastern time, picking up where our standing time left off. > > I am dropping in a link below to the wiki where you will find all updates regarding our work. Our goal in the 10th, is to gather feedback from all of you to finalize the questions and we can then mirror our calendar to that of the review process and schedule calls for the next few months as needed ( we had discussed every other week). > > I look forward to talking with you all on the 10th and wish you safe journeys home! > > If you have any problems accessing the documents, please let me know. Thanks! > > Jen > > > https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+360+Assessment+Workspace > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM > MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FIRM, NAMED TOP U.S. TRADEMARK LAW FIRM BY CORP INTL 2013 > IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013 > 513.746.2801 > Follow Me: > Follow My Blog > Domain Names Rewired > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ra at dotsportllc.com Mon Jun 30 21:36:55 2014 From: ra at dotsportllc.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:36:55 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder In-Reply-To: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <69a5bbe999254d3385e3e076bcc1a359@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <008b01cf94ab$6c76fed0$4564fc70$@dotsportllc.com> Dear Jen and colleagues, Unfortunately, on July 10th I will be hiking in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado so I doubt I will have a cell signal. I'm not sure if there was a transcript of the London meeting, but would be grateful to get one so that I might send my comments/thoughts in advance of the call. Otherwise a list of discussion points/action items would be helpful. Awaiting staff advice. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 13:20 To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Review Reminder Hi Everyone, I hope you had safe travels continuing on from London or safely home. I know everyone is likely taking some time off this week, but this is just a reminder, we had discussed holding our next phone meeting on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m. eastern time, picking up where our standing time left off. I am dropping in a link below to the wiki where you will find all updates regarding our work. Our goal in the 10th, is to gather feedback from all of you to finalize the questions and we can then mirror our calendar to that of the review process and schedule calls for the next few months as needed ( we had discussed every other week). I look forward to talking with you all on the 10th and wish you safe journeys home! If you have any problems accessing the documents, please let me know. Thanks! Jen https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+360+Assessment+Work space jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013 513.746.2801 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 864 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1028 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: